Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 447-451 |
| Seitenumfang | 5 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal |
| Jahrgang | 31 |
| Ausgabenummer | 4 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 2021 |
Abstract
In “Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence”, we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Jahrgang 31, Nr. 4, 2021, S. 447-451.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The epistemic duties of philosophers
T2 - An addendum
AU - van Baßhuysen, Philippe Carl
AU - White, Lucie Alexandra
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - In “Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence”, we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.
AB - In “Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence”, we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121815013&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1353/ken.2021.0023
DO - 10.1353/ken.2021.0023
M3 - Article
VL - 31
SP - 447
EP - 451
JO - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
JF - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
SN - 1054-6863
IS - 4
ER -