...
首页> 外文期刊>Public Health Ethics >Why One Should Do One’s Bit: Thinking about Free Riding in the Context of Public Health Ethics
【24h】

Why One Should Do One’s Bit: Thinking about Free Riding in the Context of Public Health Ethics

机译:为什么要做点什么:在公共卫生伦理学背景下的自由骑行思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Vaccination programmes against infectious diseases aim to protect individuals from serious illness but also offer collective protection once a sufficient number of people have been immunized. This so-called ‘herd immunity’ is important for individuals who, for health reasons, cannot be immunized or who respond less well to vaccines. For these individuals, it is pivotal that others establish group protection. However, herd immunity can be compromised when people deliberately decide not to be immunized and benefit from the herd’s protection. These agents are often referred to as free riders: their omissions are deemed to be unfair to those who do contribute to the collective’s health. This article addresses the unfairness of such ‘free riding’. An argument by Garett Cullity is examined, which asserts that the unfairness of moral free riding lies neither in one’s intentions, nor in one’s reluctance to embrace a public good. This argument offers a strong basis for justifiably arguing that free riding is unfair. However, it is then argued that other considerations also need to be taken into account before simply holding free riding against non-compliers.
机译:预防传染病的疫苗接种计划旨在保护个人免受严重疾病的侵害,但一旦有足够数量的人接受了免疫接种,也将提供集体保护。这种所谓的“群免疫”对出于健康原因无法免疫或对疫苗反应较差的个人非常重要。对于这些人,其他人建立群体保护至关重要。但是,当人们故意决定不接种疫苗并从牛群的保护中受益时,牛群的免疫力可能会受到损害。这些代理人通常被称为“搭便车”:他们的遗漏被认为对那些为集体健康做出贡献的人不公平。本文解决了这种“搭便车”的不公平现象。研究了Garett Cullity的一个论点,该论点断言,道德搭便车的不公平不在于人的意图,也不在于人不愿意接受公共物品。该论点为合理论证搭便车不公平提供了有力依据。但是,有人认为,在简单地对非违规者进行搭便车之前,还需要考虑其他因素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号