公共理性与公共健康:根据公共理性的正当性解释，禁烟政策是否合理?

IF 1.4 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2022-04-09 DOI:10.1093/phe/phac007

M. Nielsen

{"title":"公共理性与公共健康:根据公共理性的正当性解释，禁烟政策是否合理?","authors":"M. Nielsen","doi":"10.1093/phe/phac007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Public reason demands that policies are justified to all reasonable citizens. Public health aims at protecting or improving aggregated health outcomes. Since health is not an uncontroversial value, an insurmountable chasm between public reason and public health seems to preclude any viable synthesis between the two outlooks. For any given public health policy, some reasonable citizen seems to have a reason to support ‘no policy’ over ‘some policy’, meaning that the policy cannot be justified to all. The paper first spells out what exactly this conflict is about. Then, using smoking as a case, the paper outlines a model of reconciliation between public reason and public health that should give us some optimism if we want to have public health policies that are compatible with treating citizens as free and equal in the public reason sense.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Reason and Public Health: Can Anti-smoking Policies Be Justified According to a Public Reason Account of Justification?\",\"authors\":\"M. Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/phe/phac007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Public reason demands that policies are justified to all reasonable citizens. Public health aims at protecting or improving aggregated health outcomes. Since health is not an uncontroversial value, an insurmountable chasm between public reason and public health seems to preclude any viable synthesis between the two outlooks. For any given public health policy, some reasonable citizen seems to have a reason to support ‘no policy’ over ‘some policy’, meaning that the policy cannot be justified to all. The paper first spells out what exactly this conflict is about. Then, using smoking as a case, the paper outlines a model of reconciliation between public reason and public health that should give us some optimism if we want to have public health policies that are compatible with treating citizens as free and equal in the public reason sense.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phac007\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phac007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

公共理性要求政策对所有理性的公民都是合理的。公共卫生旨在保护或改善总体健康结果。既然健康不是一种毫无争议的价值，公共理性和公共健康之间不可逾越的鸿沟似乎排除了将这两种观点进行任何可行的综合。对于任何给定的公共卫生政策，一些理性的公民似乎有理由支持“没有政策”而不是“有政策”，这意味着该政策不可能对所有人都合理。这篇论文首先阐述了这种冲突到底是关于什么的。然后，以吸烟为例，本文概述了公共理性与公共健康之间的和解模式，如果我们希望公共卫生政策与在公共理性意义上将公民视为自由和平等的政策相兼容，这应该会给我们带来一些乐观。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Public Reason and Public Health: Can Anti-smoking Policies Be Justified According to a Public Reason Account of Justification?

Public reason demands that policies are justified to all reasonable citizens. Public health aims at protecting or improving aggregated health outcomes. Since health is not an uncontroversial value, an insurmountable chasm between public reason and public health seems to preclude any viable synthesis between the two outlooks. For any given public health policy, some reasonable citizen seems to have a reason to support ‘no policy’ over ‘some policy’, meaning that the policy cannot be justified to all. The paper first spells out what exactly this conflict is about. Then, using smoking as a case, the paper outlines a model of reconciliation between public reason and public health that should give us some optimism if we want to have public health policies that are compatible with treating citizens as free and equal in the public reason sense.

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

Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

9.50%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.