Abstract
In their recent article, ‘Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong’, Savulescu and Cameron argue for selective isolation of the elderly as an alternative to general lockdown. An important part of their argument is the claim that the latter amounts to ‘levelling down equality’ and that this is ‘unethical’ or even ‘morally repugnant’. This response argues that they fail to justify either part of this claim: the claim that levelling down is always morally wrong is subject to challenges that Savulescu and Cameron do not consider; and a policy of maintaining general lockdown does not constitute levelling down, as it provides absolute benefits to those who would be worse off under selective isolation.
Subject
Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science)
Reference3 articles.
1. Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong
2. Parfit D . Equality or priority. In: Clayton M , Williams A , eds. The ideal of equality. New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000: 81–125.
3. Temkin L . Equality, priority, and the levelling down objection. In: Clayton M , Williams A , eds. The ideal of equality. New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000: 126–61.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献