If FREE WILL is an absolute which can never be overruled, then force-vaccinations have to be ruled out, in all cases, no matter what. But it's not an absolute, for all time, everywhere, in every imaginable situation.
This is a legitimate free-will issue, and it is resolved on the basis of what the facts are, such as facts about the risk. It is a practical issue, not a Platonic Abstraction from the Cosmic Realm detached from the concrete world. Free-will questions are practical questions, and they are treated in the law, in legal proceedings, and they have concrete meaning about the real tangible world of observable phenomena where necessary decisions are made.
And these real issues -- the only ones that have any meaning, including philosophical meaning -- cannot be addressed unless it's assumed that FREE WILL is something real, or something which really does exist, and is something which can either be allowed or can be overruled.
For something to be overruled, it has to be something real that exists in the practical everyday decision-making.
Enough scientific facts are now in for the decision to be made to begin force-vaccinating people against their will, a WILL which really exists and is standing in the way of making us all safe from this new virus. It is now established that even the vaccinated are at risk if the new surge continues, because this likely leads to new variant strains which will be less vulnerable to the vaccines, so that even those vaccinated will be in danger. So the unvaccinated, still being a large number, are putting everyone at risk.
This is a concrete example of how free will must sometimes be overruled in favor of the public good, or the greater good. I.e., the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail, based on the facts, the science, the probabilities determined by good data and math. The only legitimate argument against force-vaccinations must also be based on facts or data about the level of risk (claiming it's not so great). Arguments having no connection to the data, risk, probability, etc., are incoherent nonsense of no relevance to concrete reality, to decision-making, to truth, and even to philosophy -- "philosophy" = love of wisdom = truth-seeking = finding answers to questions about the real concrete world rather than detached abstractions unconnected to verifiable facts. "Truth" cannot be based on poetry or private personal impulses, but on concrete facts which everyone can verify.
But if you define "free will" as an absolute having no measurable or verifiable characteristic, and unconnected to anything observable, as something uncaused, or as something nonexistent because it can't be verified, then you have to set aside every free-will issue as nonsensical and of no relevance to any decision-making.
"uncaused"?
We DO NOT KNOW where "free will" comes from. It's just there. We each know it at least for ourself individually, whatever might be causing it.
(Or even if you claim something caused it, like "the brain" etc., you still don't know what caused that, etc. -- no matter what "caused" something else, still those things are real and do exist. Even if mind, or will is caused by something, that doesn't change the fact that it exists and is real.)
Abstractions about "determinism" do not negate the fact that the phenomenon does exist. The "free will" is there, or the desire for this or that, and conjecture about where this "free will" came from doesn't resolve anything, or change the reality that it's there, and that in some cases this "free will" is suppressed by someone else. It has to be real, because something not really there cannot be suppressed, and this thing, wherever it came from, is suppressed at many sundry times and places, for good or ill.
No one can name a "free-will" issue in law or legal proceedings which is not about the facts and the data and the degree of risk based on the probabilities. It all assumes that free will does exist, as something which can either be permitted to the individual or as something to be overruled in the particular case because of the degree of risk or danger or likely injury.
If you've ever had the thought that someone's action had to be curtailed, by force, then you believe "free will" exists and had to be suppressed in that case. You could not demand that someone be stopped from doing what they're doing, or forced to do something, unless you believe that their "free will" exists and must be suppressed. If you say "free will" does not exist, then you have no explanation why force should ever be used against anyone, or why any law should ever be passed, or enforced. And you cannot answer why chaos and anarchy would be undesirable.
If you think the rich should be taxed, and this taxation enforced, then you believe free will exists. Or if you think we need laws imposed onto businesses, to make them do anything they otherwise would not do, then you believe free will exists, is real, and has to be suppressed in favor of what you think is the greater good.
