在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间及以后确定优先事项

Bjørn Hol, C. Solberg
{"title":"在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间及以后确定优先事项","authors":"Bjørn Hol, C. Solberg","doi":"10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe aim of this article is to study the relationship between Epicureanism and pandemic priority-setting and to explore whether Epicurus's philosophy is compliant with the later developed utilitarianism. We find this aim interesting because Epicurus had a different way of valuing death than our modern society does: Epicureanism holds that death—understood as the incident of death—cannot be bad (or good) for those who die (self-regarding effects). However, this account is still consistent with the view that a particular death can be bad for everyone else but those who die, such as family, friends, and society (other-regarding effects). During the pandemic, the focus has been on the number of deaths more than on the suffering and reduced well-being of those infected and the rest of society. However, since the pandemic requires prioritization, it is, on a utilitarian account, important to consider priorities that do the most good overall. In this article, we approach the harm of death from an Epicurean point of view, seeking to flesh out potential implications for pandemic priority-setting, and healthcare in general, using a case study of COVID-19 priority-setting. We also explore whether this would conflict with utilitarianism. We conclude that an Epicurean pandemic priority-setting approach would be different but, surprisingly, not radically different from many of the actual priority-setting decisions we saw under the COVID-19 pandemic.\n","PeriodicalId":325276,"journal":{"name":"De Ethica","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epicurean Priority-setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond\",\"authors\":\"Bjørn Hol, C. Solberg\",\"doi\":\"10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe aim of this article is to study the relationship between Epicureanism and pandemic priority-setting and to explore whether Epicurus's philosophy is compliant with the later developed utilitarianism. We find this aim interesting because Epicurus had a different way of valuing death than our modern society does: Epicureanism holds that death—understood as the incident of death—cannot be bad (or good) for those who die (self-regarding effects). However, this account is still consistent with the view that a particular death can be bad for everyone else but those who die, such as family, friends, and society (other-regarding effects). During the pandemic, the focus has been on the number of deaths more than on the suffering and reduced well-being of those infected and the rest of society. However, since the pandemic requires prioritization, it is, on a utilitarian account, important to consider priorities that do the most good overall. In this article, we approach the harm of death from an Epicurean point of view, seeking to flesh out potential implications for pandemic priority-setting, and healthcare in general, using a case study of COVID-19 priority-setting. We also explore whether this would conflict with utilitarianism. We conclude that an Epicurean pandemic priority-setting approach would be different but, surprisingly, not radically different from many of the actual priority-setting decisions we saw under the COVID-19 pandemic.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":325276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"De Ethica\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"De Ethica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De Ethica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3384/de-ethica.2001-8819.237263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是研究伊壁鸠鲁主义与流行病优先级设置之间的关系,并探讨伊壁鸠鲁的哲学是否符合后来发展起来的功利主义。我们发现这个目标很有趣,因为伊壁鸠鲁对死亡的评价与我们现代社会的不同:伊壁鸠鲁认为,死亡——被理解为死亡的事件——对那些死去的人来说不能是坏事(或好事)(与自我有关的影响)。然而,这种说法仍然与这样一种观点相一致,即特定的死亡可能对其他人有害,但对死者来说,比如家庭、朋友和社会(与他人有关的影响)。在大流行期间,人们更多地关注死亡人数,而不是受感染者和社会其他人的痛苦和福祉下降。然而,由于大流行需要确定优先次序,因此从功利角度考虑,重要的是考虑总体上最有利的优先事项。在本文中,我们从伊壁鸠鲁学派的角度探讨死亡的危害,试图通过对COVID-19优先事项设置的案例研究,充实对大流行优先事项设置和一般医疗保健的潜在影响。我们还探讨了这是否会与功利主义相冲突。我们的结论是,伊壁鸠鲁式的大流行优先事项确定方法将有所不同,但令人惊讶的是,与我们在COVID-19大流行期间看到的许多实际优先事项确定决定没有根本不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epicurean Priority-setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond
The aim of this article is to study the relationship between Epicureanism and pandemic priority-setting and to explore whether Epicurus's philosophy is compliant with the later developed utilitarianism. We find this aim interesting because Epicurus had a different way of valuing death than our modern society does: Epicureanism holds that death—understood as the incident of death—cannot be bad (or good) for those who die (self-regarding effects). However, this account is still consistent with the view that a particular death can be bad for everyone else but those who die, such as family, friends, and society (other-regarding effects). During the pandemic, the focus has been on the number of deaths more than on the suffering and reduced well-being of those infected and the rest of society. However, since the pandemic requires prioritization, it is, on a utilitarian account, important to consider priorities that do the most good overall. In this article, we approach the harm of death from an Epicurean point of view, seeking to flesh out potential implications for pandemic priority-setting, and healthcare in general, using a case study of COVID-19 priority-setting. We also explore whether this would conflict with utilitarianism. We conclude that an Epicurean pandemic priority-setting approach would be different but, surprisingly, not radically different from many of the actual priority-setting decisions we saw under the COVID-19 pandemic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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