政府领导人如何在严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型危机期间违反其认识义务

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Pub Date : 2020-05-20 DOI:10.1353/KEN.2020.0013
Eric Winsberg, J. Brennan, Chris W. Surprenant
{"title":"政府领导人如何在严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型危机期间违反其认识义务","authors":"Eric Winsberg, J. Brennan, Chris W. Surprenant","doi":"10.1353/KEN.2020.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:In spring 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, many world leaders imposed universal lockdowns. We argue that these restrictions have not been accompanied by the epistemic practices morally required for their adoption or continuation. While in theory lockdowns can be justified, governments did not meet and have not yet met their justificatory burdens. We will not argue that less stringent policies were optimal or better justified. Rather, we explain how government leaders failed and have continued to fail to meet their epistemic duties by relying upon data, models, and evidence of insufficiently good quality to justify their actions.","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"215 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/KEN.2020.0013","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Government Leaders Violated Their Epistemic Duties During the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis\",\"authors\":\"Eric Winsberg, J. Brennan, Chris W. Surprenant\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/KEN.2020.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:In spring 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, many world leaders imposed universal lockdowns. We argue that these restrictions have not been accompanied by the epistemic practices morally required for their adoption or continuation. While in theory lockdowns can be justified, governments did not meet and have not yet met their justificatory burdens. We will not argue that less stringent policies were optimal or better justified. Rather, we explain how government leaders failed and have continued to fail to meet their epistemic duties by relying upon data, models, and evidence of insufficiently good quality to justify their actions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"215 - 242\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/KEN.2020.0013\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/KEN.2020.0013\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/KEN.2020.0013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

摘要:2020年春季,为应对新冠肺炎危机,许多世界领导人实施了全球封锁。我们认为,这些限制并没有伴随着采用或延续这些限制所需的道德认识实践。虽然理论上封锁是合理的,但各国政府没有开会,也没有承担起合理的负担。我们不会争辩说,不那么严格的政策是最佳的或更有理由的。相反,我们解释了政府领导人是如何通过依赖数据、模型和质量不够好的证据来证明其行为的合理性,从而失败并继续未能履行其认识义务的。
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
How Government Leaders Violated Their Epistemic Duties During the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis
ABSTRACT:In spring 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, many world leaders imposed universal lockdowns. We argue that these restrictions have not been accompanied by the epistemic practices morally required for their adoption or continuation. While in theory lockdowns can be justified, governments did not meet and have not yet met their justificatory burdens. We will not argue that less stringent policies were optimal or better justified. Rather, we explain how government leaders failed and have continued to fail to meet their epistemic duties by relying upon data, models, and evidence of insufficiently good quality to justify their actions.
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
期刊最新文献
Contributors Editor's Note Data Solidarity Disrupted: Musings On the Overlooked Role of Mutual Aid in Data-Driven Medicine Allergic Intimacies: Food, Disability, Desire, and Risk by Michael Gill (review) Green Light Ethics: A Theory of Permissive Consent and its Moral Metaphysics by Hallie Liberto (review)
×
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