重新审视 "开关旁观者"?政府针对 COVID-19 所采取策略的伦理意义。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1007/s11673-023-10328-6
S Stelios, K N Konstantakis, P G Michaelides
{"title":"重新审视 \"开关旁观者\"?政府针对 COVID-19 所采取策略的伦理意义。","authors":"S Stelios, K N Konstantakis, P G Michaelides","doi":"10.1007/s11673-023-10328-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suppose COVID-19 is the runaway tram in the famous moral thought experiment, known as the \"Bystander at the Switch.\" Consider the two differentiated responses of governments around the world to this new threat, namely the option of quarantine/lockdown and herd immunity. Can we contrast the hypothetical with the real scenario? What do the institutional decisions and strategies for dealing with the virus, in the beginning of 2020, signify in a normative moral framework? This paper investigates these possibilities in order to highlight the similarities and, more importantly, the differences that exist between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Analysis shows that the hypothetical scenario can never be fully compared to the complex multifactorial nature of the real world. But if a comparison is attempted, the most obvious difference between the two governmental strategies is the concept of duty within the Kantian perspective. Ultimately, it is a matter of comparing freedom and life. Attributing a moral \"priority ticket\" to one or the other can be analysed through interpersonal aggregation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The \\\"Bystander at the Switch\\\" Revisited? Ethical Implications of the Government Strategies Against COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"S Stelios, K N Konstantakis, P G Michaelides\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-023-10328-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Suppose COVID-19 is the runaway tram in the famous moral thought experiment, known as the \\\"Bystander at the Switch.\\\" Consider the two differentiated responses of governments around the world to this new threat, namely the option of quarantine/lockdown and herd immunity. Can we contrast the hypothetical with the real scenario? What do the institutional decisions and strategies for dealing with the virus, in the beginning of 2020, signify in a normative moral framework? This paper investigates these possibilities in order to highlight the similarities and, more importantly, the differences that exist between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Analysis shows that the hypothetical scenario can never be fully compared to the complex multifactorial nature of the real world. But if a comparison is attempted, the most obvious difference between the two governmental strategies is the concept of duty within the Kantian perspective. Ultimately, it is a matter of comparing freedom and life. Attributing a moral \\\"priority ticket\\\" to one or the other can be analysed through interpersonal aggregation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10328-6\",\"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":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10328-6","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: 0

摘要

假设 COVID-19 是著名的道德思想实验 "开关旁观者 "中失控的电车。考虑世界各国政府对这一新威胁的两种不同反应,即隔离/封锁和群体免疫。我们能否将假设与真实情况进行对比?2020 年初应对病毒的机构决策和战略在规范性道德框架中意味着什么?本文探讨了这些可能性,以突出功利主义与康德伦理学之间的相似之处,更重要的是,两者之间的不同之处。分析表明,假设的情景永远无法与现实世界复杂的多因素性质相提并论。但如果试图进行比较,两种政府策略之间最明显的区别在于康德视角中的责任概念。归根结底,这是一个比较自由与生命的问题。将道德 "优先票 "归于其中之一,可以通过人际聚合进行分析。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The "Bystander at the Switch" Revisited? Ethical Implications of the Government Strategies Against COVID-19.

Suppose COVID-19 is the runaway tram in the famous moral thought experiment, known as the "Bystander at the Switch." Consider the two differentiated responses of governments around the world to this new threat, namely the option of quarantine/lockdown and herd immunity. Can we contrast the hypothetical with the real scenario? What do the institutional decisions and strategies for dealing with the virus, in the beginning of 2020, signify in a normative moral framework? This paper investigates these possibilities in order to highlight the similarities and, more importantly, the differences that exist between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Analysis shows that the hypothetical scenario can never be fully compared to the complex multifactorial nature of the real world. But if a comparison is attempted, the most obvious difference between the two governmental strategies is the concept of duty within the Kantian perspective. Ultimately, it is a matter of comparing freedom and life. Attributing a moral "priority ticket" to one or the other can be analysed through interpersonal aggregation.

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 Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
期刊最新文献
Reflections from the Editors-in-Chief. The Role of Ethics Committees in Charity Care Allocation. Meaningful and Successful Ethical Enactments: A Proposal from Deliberative Wisdom Theory. Priorities in the Protection of Citizens Who Have Fallen into Enemy Hands. "Expensive Sisters".
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1