Phantom premise and a shape-shifting ism: reply to Hassoun
In ‘Against vaccine nationalism’, Nicole Hassoun misrepresents our argument, distorts our position and ignores crucial distinctions we present in our article, ‘Love thy neighbor? Allocating vaccines in a world of competing obligations’. She has created a strawman that does not resemble our position....
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2021
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2021, Volume: 47, Issue: 11, Pages: 775-776 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In ‘Against vaccine nationalism’, Nicole Hassoun misrepresents our argument, distorts our position and ignores crucial distinctions we present in our article, ‘Love thy neighbor? Allocating vaccines in a world of competing obligations’. She has created a strawman that does not resemble our position. In this reply, we address two features of ‘Against vaccine nationalism’. First, we address a phantom premise. Hassoun misattributes to us a thesis, according to which citizen-directed duties are stronger than noncitizen-directed duties. This thesis is a figment of her imagination, not a fragment of our argument. Second, we address a shape-shifting ism. Ambiguity attaches to ‘vaccine nationalism,’ ambiguity that Hassoun exploits despite our distinguishing various meanings of the phrase. As a result, the type of vaccine nationalism she argues against is not the type we defend.Hassoun objects to the following argument, which is her reconstruction of ours:P1. When we belong to a nation-state, we belong to a community that creates(moral) reasons to act in the interest of our citizens.P2. Our obligations to members of the global community (or those outside of our nation[-]state) are weaker than those [to] our cocitizens because of the associative ties with them.C.[‘]Within a nation-state, there are moral reasons to procure and allocate vaccines in a self-interested manner’. (Hassoun,1 p1)Hassoun does not contest P1.1 Instead, she objects to P2, which is the focal point of her response. She writes, ‘The problem with Ferguson and Caplan’s argument is that they just baldly assert P2’ (Hassoun,1 p1). She then asks, ‘Why are our obligations to members of the global community (or those outside of our nation[-]state) weaker than those to our cocitizens because of the associative ties?’ (Hassoun,1 p1).There are obvious problems with Hassoun’s formulation of P2. Notice that P2 contains an inference … |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107404 |