Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study
Introduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants’ moral values, ethical reaso...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor and Francis
2022
|
| _version_ | 1826308011900010496 |
|---|---|
| author | Johnson, SB Lucivero, F Zimmermann, BM Stendahl, E Samuel, G Phillips, A Hangel, N |
| author_facet | Johnson, SB Lucivero, F Zimmermann, BM Stendahl, E Samuel, G Phillips, A Hangel, N |
| author_sort | Johnson, SB |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Introduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants’ moral values, ethical reasoning and normative positions around the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed data from 177 semi-structured interviews across five European countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) conducted in April 2020.Results: Findings are structured in four themes: ethical contention in the context of normative uncertainty; patterns of ethical deliberation when contemplating restrictions and measures to reduce viral transmission; moral judgements regarding “good” and “bad” people; using existing structures of meaning for moral reasoning and ethical judgement.Discussion: Moral tools are an integral part of people’s reaction to and experience of a pandemic. ‘Moral preparedness’ for the next phases of this pandemic and for future pandemics will require an understanding of the moral values and normative concepts citizens use in their own decision-making. Three important elements of this preparedness are: conceptual clarity over what responsibility or respect mean in practice; better understanding of collective mindsets and how to encourage them; and a situated, rather than universalist, approach to the development of normative standards.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:13:01Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e4ef82e2-d7a9-4b35-9b58-868f725e52dd |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:13:01Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Taylor and Francis |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e4ef82e2-d7a9-4b35-9b58-868f725e52dd2022-07-05T08:58:23ZEthical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European studyJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e4ef82e2-d7a9-4b35-9b58-868f725e52ddEnglishSymplectic ElementsTaylor and Francis2022Johnson, SBLucivero, FZimmermann, BMStendahl, ESamuel, GPhillips, AHangel, NIntroduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants’ moral values, ethical reasoning and normative positions around the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed data from 177 semi-structured interviews across five European countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) conducted in April 2020.Results: Findings are structured in four themes: ethical contention in the context of normative uncertainty; patterns of ethical deliberation when contemplating restrictions and measures to reduce viral transmission; moral judgements regarding “good” and “bad” people; using existing structures of meaning for moral reasoning and ethical judgement.Discussion: Moral tools are an integral part of people’s reaction to and experience of a pandemic. ‘Moral preparedness’ for the next phases of this pandemic and for future pandemics will require an understanding of the moral values and normative concepts citizens use in their own decision-making. Three important elements of this preparedness are: conceptual clarity over what responsibility or respect mean in practice; better understanding of collective mindsets and how to encourage them; and a situated, rather than universalist, approach to the development of normative standards. |
| spellingShingle | Johnson, SB Lucivero, F Zimmermann, BM Stendahl, E Samuel, G Phillips, A Hangel, N Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title | Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title_full | Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title_fullStr | Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title_short | Ethical reasoning during a pandemic: results of a five country European study |
| title_sort | ethical reasoning during a pandemic results of a five country european study |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johnsonsb ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT luciverof ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT zimmermannbm ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT stendahle ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT samuelg ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT phillipsa ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy AT hangeln ethicalreasoningduringapandemicresultsofafivecountryeuropeanstudy |