PhilArchive
open access
Vaccination and argumentation
This paper suggests two ideas. The first boils down to a meta-ethical thesis that in situations of “crisis” (such as the ongoing pandemic), the language is among the first to die as a system of rational agreement. Another idea is that radical attitudes, specifically pro and contra attitudes, still can be represented sensibly. The author illustrates this thesis in examples of Kant and Mill’s classical ethical theories.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Refusing the COVID-19 vaccine: What’s wrong with that?#77180
- Key Ethical Issues Related to Covid 19 Vaccination: Personal Choice vs. Greater Public Welfare and Informed Consent#107916
- Key Ethical Issues Related to Covid 19 Vaccination: Personal Choice Vs. Greater Public Welfare and Informed Consent#101892
- Basis of ethical obligation? Covid-19 vaccines#727731
- Tailoring of Vaccine-Focused Messages: Moral Foundations#268063
Record · ID 709756
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive