Kantian political philosophy, coercion, and public health.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Remco J L van Dijk, Justin S Bernstein
{"title":"Kantian political philosophy, coercion, and public health.","authors":"Remco J L van Dijk, Justin S Bernstein","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00239-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many public health policies are coercive and therefore, they require moral justification. Kantian political philosophy is an under-explored but appealing approach to public health ethics. According to the Kantian approach, which is centred around freedom as independence, the state has an important role in protecting that freedom. In doing so, the state is justified to use coercion. To illustrate the Kantian approach, we consider its implications in the context of coercive vaccination policy. We show coercive vaccination policies are justified, because the state is needed to provide determinacy, because such policies are needed to guarantee the systematic enjoyment of the right to freedom, and because such policies reduce the risk for dependence on others.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00239-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many public health policies are coercive and therefore, they require moral justification. Kantian political philosophy is an under-explored but appealing approach to public health ethics. According to the Kantian approach, which is centred around freedom as independence, the state has an important role in protecting that freedom. In doing so, the state is justified to use coercion. To illustrate the Kantian approach, we consider its implications in the context of coercive vaccination policy. We show coercive vaccination policies are justified, because the state is needed to provide determinacy, because such policies are needed to guarantee the systematic enjoyment of the right to freedom, and because such policies reduce the risk for dependence on others.

许多公共卫生政策都是强制性的,因此需要道德上的合理解释。康德政治哲学是公共卫生伦理中一种未被充分探索但却很有吸引力的方法。康德的方法以作为独立的自由为中心,根据这一方法,国家在保护自由方面发挥着重要作用。为此,国家有理由使用强制手段。为了说明康德方法,我们结合强制疫苗接种政策来考虑其影响。我们表明,强制疫苗接种政策是合理的,因为需要国家来提供确定性,因为需要此类政策来保证人们系统地享有自由权,还因为此类政策降低了依赖他人的风险。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信