Applying Two-level Utilitarianism and the Principle of Fairness to Mandatory Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: the Situation in South Korea

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS

Asian Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1007/s41649-022-00221-6

Sungjin Park

{"title":"Applying Two-level Utilitarianism and the Principle of Fairness to Mandatory Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: the Situation in South Korea","authors":"Sungjin Park","doi":"10.1007/s41649-022-00221-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Korean society has sought to vaccinate most of its population. Consequently, the Korean government has attempted to make vaccination compulsory by promoting awareness of its benefits. The administration has pushed for mandatory vaccination by claiming that vaccination is more beneficial than harmful, based on a utilitarian view. However, this view is difficult to justify based on the two levels of utilitarianism presented by R. M. Hare. Compulsory vaccination cannot satisfy the universalizability, nor the satisfaction of preference, and exposes the difficulties of utilitarianism. In addition, mandatory vaccination is difficult to justify based on the perspective of fairness theory, that is, “justice as the fairness” of John Rawls and H. L. A. Hart’s principle of fairness. From the point of view of Hare’s utilitarianism and fairness theory, it has been shown that mandatory vaccination is not easily justified. In reality, the power of the state continues to strengthen, and we should examine this situation from a critical point of view.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41649-022-00221-6.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-022-00221-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Korean society has sought to vaccinate most of its population. Consequently, the Korean government has attempted to make vaccination compulsory by promoting awareness of its benefits. The administration has pushed for mandatory vaccination by claiming that vaccination is more beneficial than harmful, based on a utilitarian view. However, this view is difficult to justify based on the two levels of utilitarianism presented by R. M. Hare. Compulsory vaccination cannot satisfy the universalizability, nor the satisfaction of preference, and exposes the difficulties of utilitarianism. In addition, mandatory vaccination is difficult to justify based on the perspective of fairness theory, that is, “justice as the fairness” of John Rawls and H. L. A. Hart’s principle of fairness. From the point of view of Hare’s utilitarianism and fairness theory, it has been shown that mandatory vaccination is not easily justified. In reality, the power of the state continues to strengthen, and we should examine this situation from a critical point of view.

查看原文本刊更多论文

新冠肺炎疫情期间两级效用主义和公平原则在强制接种中的应用——韩国情况

为应对新冠肺炎疫情，韩国社会已寻求为大部分人口接种疫苗。因此，韩国政府试图通过提高人们对疫苗益处的认识来强制接种疫苗。政府基于功利主义的观点，声称接种疫苗是有益的，而不是有害的，从而推动了强制性疫苗接种。然而，基于R·M·黑尔提出的两个层次的功利主义，这种观点很难被证明是合理的。强制接种既不能满足普遍性，也不能满足偏好，暴露出功利主义的困境。此外，基于公平理论的观点，即约翰·罗尔斯和H.L.A.哈特的公平原则的“公平即正义”，强制接种疫苗是很难证明的。从黑尔的功利主义和公平理论的角度来看，强制接种疫苗并不容易。事实上，国家的权力在不断加强，我们应该从批判的角度来审视这种情况。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Asian Bioethics Review Multiple-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

3.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.