疫苗接种伦理的标量方法

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS
Steven R. Kraaijeveld, Rachel Gur-Arie, Euzebiusz Jamrozik
{"title":"疫苗接种伦理的标量方法","authors":"Steven R. Kraaijeveld, Rachel Gur-Arie, Euzebiusz Jamrozik","doi":"10.1007/s10892-023-09445-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground—and limit—the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.","PeriodicalId":35843,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethics","volume":"264 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics\",\"authors\":\"Steven R. Kraaijeveld, Rachel Gur-Arie, Euzebiusz Jamrozik\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10892-023-09445-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground—and limit—the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethics\",\"volume\":\"264 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-09445-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-09445-6","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: 0

摘要

人们应该为了他人而接种疫苗吗?什么可以作为人们应该这样做的规范性主张的基础和限制?在本文中,我们提出了一个基于原因的结果主义的疫苗接种帐户为他人的利益。我们概述了八个基于危害和概率的因素,我们认为,这些因素给了人们接种疫苗的道德理由。我们没有从二元道德义务(即,人们要么有接种疫苗的道德义务,要么没有接种疫苗的道德义务)的角度来理解他人指导的疫苗接种,而是开发了一种标量方法,根据这种方法,考虑到疫苗接种的道德益处,人们接种疫苗的道德理由可能更强,也可能更弱。我们的方法的一个优点是,它可以解释为什么一个人可能有很强的道德理由接种疫苗a,但只有薄弱的道德理由接种疫苗b。我们讨论了我们的方法的理论优势,并提供了一个针对COVID-19疫苗接种的案例研究来证明它的实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics
Abstract Should people get vaccinated for the sake of others? What could ground—and limit—the normative claim that people ought to do so? In this paper, we propose a reasons-based consequentialist account of vaccination for the benefit of others. We outline eight harm-based and probabilistic factors that, we argue, give people moral reasons to get vaccinated. Instead of understanding other-directed vaccination in terms of binary moral duties (i.e., where people either have or do not have a moral duty to get vaccinated), we develop a scalar approach according to which people can have stronger or weaker moral reasons to get vaccinated in view of the moral good of vaccination. One advantage of our approach is that it can capture why a person might have strong moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine A, but only weak moral reasons to get vaccinated with Vaccine B. We discuss theoretical strengths of our approach and provide a case study of vaccination against COVID-19 to demonstrate its practical significance.
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
Journal of Ethics
Journal of Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ethics: An International Philosophical Review seeks to publish articles on a wide range of topics in ethics, philosophically construed, including such areas as ethical theory, social, political, and legal philosophy, applied ethics, meta-ethics, the metaphysics of morality, and the history of ethics. The Journal of Ethics publishes work from a wide variety of styles including but not limited to the analytic tradition and hermeneutics. The Journal of Ethics is also interested in ethical thinking that is enriched by psychology, sociology and other empirical disciplines. The Journal of Ethics is primarily an organ of philosophical research, although it publishes work on topics of concern to academics and professionals alike. The journal also seeks to publish the highest quality commentaries on works published in its pages. Its double-blind review process must ensure analytical acuity as well as depth and range of philosophical scholarship. At the moment, the journal does not publish book reviews.
×
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