I know some folks in the human rights community get a bit annoyed with me when I bring in practicality-based arguments to convince people of the need for a human rights approach to a problem. But in my experience, legal and moral arguments don't convince all audiences.
Take the issue of torture, for example. You can explain that it's illegal in international & national law, and you can say that it's just wrong - and I agree, of course - but those arguments don't convince some people.
So, you also remind them that torture doesn't work: people will say anything to stop being tortured, whether it's true or not, so it doesn't deliver reliable information. And torture is also counter-productive: it acts as a recruiting poster for your country's enemies.
Those practicality-based arguments will win over some people you can't convince with the legal and moral arguments.
Yes, in an ideal world, law and morality would be enough, but we're out here trying to convince people in the real world, where not all of our audiences think like us.
And yes, this argument about vaccines falls under similar practicality-based thinking (encouraging practical self-interest) and is much needed right now - along with other arguments for other audiences, of course...
https://twitter.com/astroehlein/status/1370633377175515137
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
