Pandemic Propaganda and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
For a society to be moral and ethical, everyone must have the ability to make rational decisions guided by reason.
For a society to be moral and ethical, everyone must have the ability to make rational decisions guided by reason. "Reason" generally refers to the ability to logically perceive, judge, and act without being swayed by emotion. In other words, "reason" is also the capacity to make moral judgments and practice goodness.
In Japan, phrases such as "compassion" and "for the beloved" were actively used as propaganda by the government and medical community throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, promoting an affirmative vaccination policy.
However, "compassion" is neither "medical care" nor a "medical procedure." Why was "emotion," which is essentially unrelated to "medical care," prioritized over it in the pandemic? There may have been questionable economic or political motives behind shifting the discussion from a fact-based approach to a moral-based one. Alternatively, many politicians may have simply been unable to withstand cutting-edge, scientifically grounded arguments.
In any case, given that many politicians set targets for the number of people vaccinated and repeatedly announced the number of doses administered at every opportunity, it is undeniable that, in the context of "propaganda," the number of vaccinations was prioritized over the effectiveness of the vaccine.
In reality, logically and ethically rejecting such propaganda is extremely difficult. This is because, from the perspective of an ordinary person, it is unclear what principles (definitions and standards) the propaganda is based on. In other words, the government and medical community have failed to present a clear moral and ethical framework as the foundation of society and thereby, from our perspective, the government and medical community seem to be merely floating within a vague atmosphere (social structure).
This vague atmosphere becomes one of the main reasons why it is difficult for us to morally grasp propaganda and why we cannot reject it on moral grounds. Moreover, in today’s society, which embraces diversity, we miss the opportunity to recognize such fundamental issues, as we do not live our lives with constant awareness of ethical and moral perspectives.
In this post, I will focus on the concept of "compassion (for others)" and propose "Kant’s Categorical Imperative" as an ethical counterargument against excessive propaganda. Additionally, from a Japanese perspective, I will examine whether the policy decisions underpinning such propaganda hold ethical and moral validity. I hope this post offers you some valuable insight.
On the surface, "compassion" carries a moral resonance that is in harmony with Japanese culture, which traditionally values mutual benefit and coexistence. However, compassion is ultimately a human emotion, and human emotion by itself cannot serve as the foundation of a moral society.
For example, "compassion without reason" can lead to "misguided kindness" or "intrusive compassion," which result in flawed decisions driven by short-term emotional impulses, fostering societal pressure, enabling the abuse of power, and ultimately accelerating the moral decay of society. On the other hand, "reason without compassion" leads to "cold rationality," and an ethical framework built solely on this would create a rigid and unfeeling society, devoid of empathy and humanity.
Therefore, in establishing a moral social foundation, it is crucial to build a relationship where reason guides compassion and compassion complements reason. A society driven by "compassion without reason" becomes one governed by emotions, leading to an immoral world where reason has collapsed. This may be precisely what we are witnessing today.
To achieve the "purpose" of vaccination, the government and medical community employed the propaganda of "compassion" and used "people" as a "means" to cultivate a social trend that framed vaccination as a moral obligation. In other words, they constructed a coercive social narrative: "If you have compassion, you should get vaccinated."
Conversely, at a subconscious level, they also exploited the opposite implication, embedding the notion that "those who refuse vaccination lack compassion" into society.
As a result, emotional propaganda took precedence over rational debate in public discourse, fostering social peer pressure that disregarded individual rational judgment while simultaneously suppressing discussions that presented alternative scientific perspectives.
Much of the propaganda during the pandemic operated on a logic that directly contradicted Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Yet, its unsettling internal consistency suggests that the government and medical community—whether consciously or unconsciously—selectively utilized (or even exploited) Kant’s Categorical Imperative to justify their actions. Therefore, to counter such propaganda, a logically coherent and ethically grounded argument based on Kant’s Categorical Imperative was essential.
■ First Formulation: The Formula of Universal Law
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
■ Second Formulation: The Formula of Humanity (as an End in Itself)
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."
■ Third Formulation: The Formula of Autonomy (or the Kingdom of Ends)
"Act only so that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims."
In other words, Kant’s Categorical Imperative presents three key formulations: whether our actions would not raise moral issues if universally applied to society, whether our actions treat others not merely as means but as ends in themselves, and whether we are consistently applying these principles in our reasoning and decision-making.
In reality, it is difficult for modern individuals, who embrace diverse values, to fully grasp Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Even if we were to encounter it, our ethical judgment would be hindered by (A) "Utilitarianism," which prioritizes the interests of society as a whole over individual rights, (B) "Postmodern values," which relativize morality, and (C) the "influence of the mass media," which undermines rational discourse through emotional narratives.
In particular, in Japan, where Western culture has been widely adopted and diverse religions such as Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity are deeply woven into the social fabric, Kantian ethics has struggled to gain traction and has lost much of its relevance.
These values foster a rich culture in the short term, but in modern society, where these values are pursued relentlessly over the long term, the balance between their positive and negative aspects collapses. The negative aspects, in particular, reach a level that can no longer be ignored. In other words, the diverse values (especially human instincts and self-interest) in modern society easily overshadow moral and ethical frameworks, making it increasingly difficult to expect rational judgment from the masses.
In modern society, Kantian ethics, which respects the free will of the individual, often conflicts with utilitarianism, which prioritizes the interests of society as a whole. While utilitarianism serves as an ethical guideline, it is conceptually distinct from "totalitarianism," which is based on a political system in which the state controls the people through law and violence. Utilitarianism is more in harmony with democracy (and capitalism) because it seeks to promote the overall interests and welfare of society.
Surely, many of the policies adopted by the government and medical community during this pandemic have exhibited aspects of "totalitarianism." However, since Japan has established a constitutional and legal system based on "democracy (and capitalism)" since World War II, I do not view this issue as a conflict between "democracy (and capitalism)" and "totalitarianism." Rather, I view this issue as a conflict between the "universality of ethics (Kantian ethics)" and "utilitarianism."
In utilitarianism, the interests of the group take priority in both the short and long term. Therefore, in crisis situations such as a pandemic, the logic that "public welfare is to be prioritized over individual rights" becomes prominent. However, ethical problems inevitably arise in this process, as it justifies "treating individuals as mere means to an end."
At this point, many people fail to recognize the real issue: that "they are not being respected as autonomous individuals," since they readily accept "self-sacrifice for the benefit of others." As a result, many do not view this as unethical and thus mistakenly believe it to be a virtuous action, justifying it in a chain reaction.
According to Kantian ethics, the free will of the individual must be respected. Even if policies aim to benefit society as a whole, those that treat individuals merely as means to an end cannot be justified. This is because people are autonomous beings, not slaves or lab rats.
In light of these facts, the government and medical community’s adoption of a "utilitarian-like position" during the pandemic, along with the justification of vaccination through the emotional framework of "compassion," must be considered an "unethical act." Emotions, by their nature, cannot serve as a universal law or an "ethical framework" in society. A society ruled by emotions is one where reason has collapsed.
As a basic premise, we must firmly recognize that we have no "right to be used as a means" by the nation or third parties, and that we are "individuals who should be respected as autonomous beings."
The Constitution of Japan includes an article on "respect for the individual" (Article 13), which states, "All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and other governmental affairs."
This Article demonstrates the necessity of balancing respect for individuals with the public welfare (the common good), which can be seen as reflecting the conflict between Kantian ethics and utilitarianism.
In other words, the phrase "All of the people shall be respected as individuals" in Article 13 aligns with Kantian ethics. On the other hand, the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare" reflects utilitarianism, indicating that when the overall welfare of society (public welfare) takes precedence, individual rights may be restricted.
A crisis situation, like the pandemic, might be seen as a good opportunity or excuse to adopt "utilitarianism," which treats people as means to an end. In this context, there is a potential constitutional violation if excessive utilitarianism justifies using individuals as mere means. To eliminate this possibility, the government has requested signed "Written Statement of Vaccination Request" from those scheduled to receive the vaccine.
What is crucial here in this context is not whether this actually violates the Constitution, but even if the government balances respect for individuals and the public welfare, the fact that "we are being treated as means and not respected as individuals" remains unchanged.
The "Written Statement of Vaccination Request" is an "Authorization certificate" through which the government and medical community seek an individual’s consent to be treated as a mere means.
This sentiment might be particularly strong among those who, from the beginning, tore up their "Written Statement of Vaccination Request" and remained steadfast in refusing the vaccine, as they feel their autonomy is being violated.
A person does not cease to be a means and become an end simply because of a mere piece of paper, the "Written Statement of Vaccination Request." Those who refused the vaccine are individuals who rejected being "treated as a means" and instead asserted their autonomy.
The government and medical community justified strong policies under the banner of "public welfare" during the pandemic, yet in peacetime, they act as if they value individual rights. They selectively promote "evidence-based medicine (EBM)" when it serves their agenda, while disregarding or even suppressing inconvenient data. They refuse to admit their mistakes and instead push forward with interpretations that align with their convenience.
These issues would be evident if explicitly stated, but of course, they are not kind enough to make them clear to the public. As a result, for those who take their statements at face value without questioning the underlying intentions or objectives, their actions may seem like well-founded decisions driven by a consistent ideology.
In this way, the government and medical community present their ideologies as if they were universal moral principles. However, their actual moral stance shifts depending on the situation, revealing a lack of true universality. This inconsistency can largely be attributed to three key factors: authoritarianism, economic conflicts of interest, and political exploitation.
Authoritarianism, economic conflicts of interest, and political exploitation are driven not by moral principles but by "human instincts"—particularly "self-interest." Throughout history, human instincts have often overridden moral and ethical concepts. For those in power, the greatest concern is public backlash, compelling them to appear as if they are exercising restraint.
Their convenient interpretation to deal with this is formal moral principles. Their moral framework functions as a gradational boundary separating them from the general public. In other words, the government and medical community construct their own ethical framework to protect their interests and present it as if it were universal ethics. This allows them to create the illusion of public consent while reinforcing their own privileges. Thus, the ethics they uphold are not true ethical principles but mere tools for maintaining and legitimizing their authority and interests.
There is no consistent ethical framework in the government and medical community. All that exists are "special rules that apply only to themselves." Such "rules" do not transcend the realm of a "special view of life and death that ordinary people do not share," and as a result, when the public encounters these rules, they mistakenly perceive them as lofty moral principles.
However, ethics and morality without clear definitions are nothing more than "wordplay." Without clearly defined principles, ethics and morality become susceptible to convenient interpretations and arbitrary applications, which can then serve as an excuse for the exercise of power under the guise of moral legitimacy.
We must firmly recognize that the government and medical community do not provide society with a genuine moral and ethical framework for its operations, and at the same time, we must acknowledge that they do not operate under any lofty moral or ethical principles.
Could you accept the following actions being applied to the all over the world as universal rules?
• Recommending medical treatments under the pretext of "compassion."
• Sacrificing the minority for the happiness of the majority, without eliminating the possibility that oneself may be part of the minority.
• Permitting gain-of-function experiments without eliminating the risk of leakage.
• Allowing conflicts of interest between regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies.
• The government monopolizing the purchase of drugs.
• The government introducing public funds into pharmaceutical companies.
• The government providing highly predictable investment plans to pharmaceutical companies, disrupting free market discipline.
• The government not disclosing contracts with pharmaceutical companies.
• The government interfering with drug safety research.
• Introducing insufficiently tested genetic preparations into the public, calling them vaccines.
• Subjectively interpreting that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the disadvantages of health damage.
• Defining a positive PCR reaction as infection.
• Failing to compile inconvenient data.
• Concealing inconvenient data.
• Causing health damage with preventive medicine.
• Not imposing damages that exceed the profits on pharmaceutical companies.
• Arbitrarily manipulating data in clinical trials (cutting out periods or intentionally excluding subjects).
• Using drugs other than saline in clinical trials and calling them placebos.
• Evaluating the safety of drugs by comparing them with such placebos.
• Not imposing any civil or criminal liability on pharmaceutical companies for health damage suffered by clinical trial subjects.
• Investigating the unexplored long-term safety and effectiveness of drugs after approval.
• Doctors advertising drugs in the media.
• Relaxing regulations for the convenience of experts.
• Introducing contaminants such as residual DNA and residual dsRNA from mRNA vaccines into the body, encapsulated in LNPs (lipid nanoparticles).
• Applying traditional regulatory limits for residual DNA not encapsulated in LNPs to those encapsulated in LNPs.
• Allowing the use of qPCR, a method that consistently underestimates the amount, as the measurement technique for residual DNA.
• Shifting the responsibility of proving the true amount of residual DNA, which lies with the pharmaceutical companies, onto third parties.
• Criticizing third-party verification actions and shifting the verification burden, without holding pharmaceutical companies accountable.
• Downplaying potential harm.
• Not evaluating researcher qualifications from the perspective of their personality and humanity.
• Reflecting political ideologies of peer reviewers during the peer review of papers.
• Publishing papers on non-reproducible research as peer-reviewed.
• Not imposing civil or criminal liability on authors of fabricated papers.
• Imposing at least one of those actions on other countries instead of one’s own.
There are too many issues to mention here, but this is what it means to universalize actions based on "Kant’s Categorical Imperative." In today’s society, there are domains where these actions are considered to be ethical.
I am prepared to part ways with those who cannot understand this, even if it means dividing the world, nations, and cultures in two. In fact, the so-called friends I lost during the pandemic were those who failed to grasp this.
Ideals and reality may diverge, but I have the freedom to pursue my ideals. They, on the other hand, lack both the freedom and the courage to do so. They measure their worth by how much they are constrained by others, while I have the freedom to define my own worth. They have no freedom—while I do.
From now on, what is urgently required of us, the general public, in response to the propaganda of the government and medical community, is a universal ethical and moral framework with logical coherence to firmly reject it.
This includes a logic rooted in "respect for free will based on reason" and "resistance to social peer pressure," as well as the education needed to pass these principles on to future generations.
And I believe that one way to achieve this is for us to embrace Kantian ethics.
We must not accept the words of the government or medical institutions uncritically; rather, we must base our ethical judgments on our own reason. Kantian ethics serves as a universal guideline for protecting individual dignity, not only in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but in all situations. Looking back at history, we find numerous instances where states have infringed upon individual freedoms under the pretext of "public interest." Each time, society has made ethical mistakes, only to regret them later.
We must not follow the same path. In a society without ethics, there is no autonomous freedom. That is precisely why we must arm ourselves with reason and continue to pursue ethically sound choices. This can only be realized when each of us thinks independently and takes action.