Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2021
When humanity has either suppressed coronavirus disease 2019 or learned to come to terms with its continued existence, governments and corporations probably return to their prepandemic stances. Solutions to the world’s problems are sought from technology and business innovations, not from considerations of equality and well-being for all. This is in stark contrast with the pandemic-time situation. Many governments, at least initially, listened to the recommendations of expert advisers, most notably public health authorities, who proceeded from considerations of equality and common good. I suggest that we should continue on this path when the immediate threat of the disease is over. Other crises are already ongoing—poverty, conflicts, climate change, financial bubbles, and so on—and it would be good to use expert knowledge rather than interests and ideologies in dealing with them. To assist in this, I outline the characteristics of a new kind of counsellor, impartial adviser, who is normatively motivated by a sense of copathy and who takes into account all views, nice and not-so-nice alike. I illustrate the nature and ideological orientation of copathic impartial advisers by placing them on a map of justice and examining their relationships with the main political moralities of our time.
1. Häyry, M. COVID-19: Another look at solidarity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2022;31, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120001115. Published online by Cambridge University Press Dec 21 2020Google Scholar.
2. Häyry, M. The COVID-19 pandemic: A month of bioethics in Finland. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:114–22. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
3. Häyry, M. The COVID-19 pandemic: Healthcare crisis leadership as ethics communication. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:42–50. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000444 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
4. Savulescu, J, Persson, I, Wilkinson, D. Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics 2020;34:620–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
5. Häyry, M. Measuring the quality of life: Why, how and what? Theoretical Medicine 1991;2:97–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. Häyry, M. Utilitarian approaches to justice in health care. Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. Rhodes, R, Battin, MP, Silvers, A, eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002, at 53–64 Google Scholar.
7. Häyry, M. Utilitarianism and bioethics. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Ashcroft, R, Dawson, A, Draper, H, McMillan, J, eds. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2007, at 57–64 Google Scholar.
8. Harris, J. QALYfying the value of life. Journal of Medical Ethics 1987;13:117–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
9. Häyry, M, Häyry, H. Health care as a right, fairness and medical resources. Bioethics 1990;4:1–21 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
10. Harris, J. Why kill the cabin boy? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:4–9. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000420 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
11. Häyry, M. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. London: Routledge; 1994 Google Scholar.
12. Häyry, M. Doctrines and dimensions of justice: Their historical backgrounds and ideological underpinnings. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27:188–216 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
13. Häyry, M, Vehmas, S. Disability as a test of justice in a globalising world. Journal of Global Ethics 2015;11:90–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14. Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982 Google Scholar.
15. Heyes, C. Identity politics. In: Zalta EN. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University; Fall 2018 ed.; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/identity-politics/ Google Scholar
16. Sandel, M. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982 Google Scholar.
17. Sandel, M. Justice: What Is the Right Thing to Do? London: Penguin Books; 2009 Google Scholar.
18. Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (orig. 1759). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund; 1976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19. Friedman, , Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962 Google Scholar.
20. Cohen, GA. The workers and the word: Why Marx had the right to think he was right. Praxis 1968;3:376–90Google Scholar.
21. Cohen, GA. Are workers forced to sell their labor power? Philosophy and Public Affairs 1985;14:99–105 Google Scholar.
22. Baehr AR. Liberal feminism. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University; Spring 2021 ed.; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/feminism-liberal/
23. Allen A. Feminist perspectives on power. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University; Fall 2016 ed.; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/feminist-power/
24. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25. Rawls, J. Political Liberalism (orig. 1993). Extended ed. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2005 Google Scholar.
26. Rawls, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vols. I–II. McCarthy, T, trans. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984–87Google Scholar.
28. Habermas, J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Lenhardt, C, Weber Nicholsen, S, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990 Google Scholar.
29. Habermas, J. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cronin, C, trans. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1993 Google Scholar.
30. Rousseau, JJ. Social Contract and Discourses (orig. 1762). Cole GDH, trans. London: J. M. Dent & Sons; 1920 Google Scholar; available at www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm
31. Kant, I. The Metaphysics of Morals (orig. 1797). Abbott TK, trans. Oxford, MS: Project Gutenberg; 2016 Google Scholar; available at www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5682/pg5682-images.html
32. Rydenfelt, H. Constructivist problems, realist solution. In: Kegley, J, Skowronski, K, eds. Persuasion and Compulsion in Democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2013, at 153–69Google Scholar.
33. Häyry, M. Discoursive humanity as a transcendental basis for cognitive-(dis)ability ethics and policies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2016;25:262–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
34. Nussbaum, M. Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998 Google Scholar.
35. Nussbaum, M. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2006 Google Scholar.
36. Nussbaum, M. Creating Capabilites: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37. Häyry, M. Just better utilitarianism? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:343–67. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000882 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
38. Rydenfelt, H. From justice to the good? Liberal utilitarianism, climate change and the coronavirus crisis. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:376–83. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39. Räsänen, J. Liberal utilitarianism—Yes, but for whom? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30:368–75. doi:10.1017/S0963180120000894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40. Häyry, M. Pandemian jälkeen—Tuhon tie vai järki käteen? (After the pandemic—The road to destruction or reasonable reassessment? in Finnish). Etiikka.fi April 12 2020; available at https://etiikka.fi/pandemian-jalkeen-tuhon-tie-vai-jarki-kateen/ (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).Google Scholar
41. Marx K, Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party (orig. 1848). Selected Works. Vol. 1, Moore S, Engels F, transl. Blunden A, corr. Moscow: Progress Publishers; 2004, at 98–137; available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
42. Johnson B. The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. Historic UK (no date); available at https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
43. European Commission. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment: Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. 2018; available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_strategy_2018.pdf (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
44. Häyry, M. Bioeconomy: A bridge to the future? European Bioeconomy Scene 2019, A bioeconomy conference in Helsinki, Finland, July 8–10 2019; available at https://mmm.videosync.fi/eubioscene19 (starting at 2:34:38) (accessed 20 Dec 2020)Google Scholar.
45. Cooper AA. Earl of Shaftesbury. In: den Uyl D, ed. Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Vol 1. (orig. 1711). 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund; 2001; available at https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/811.
46. Häyry, M. Causation, responsibility, and harm: How the discursive shift from law and ethics to social justice sealed the plight of nonhuman animals. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29:246–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
47. Jollimore T. Impartiality. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University; Summer 2020 ed.; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/impartiality/.
48. Rydenfelt H. Kenen on kokonaisetu? (Whose is the overall benefit? in Finnish) Etiikka.fi 2020 March 18; available at https://etiikka.fi/kenen-on-kokonaisetu/ (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
49. Häyry M, Rydenfelt H. Vain parhaat täytteet—Tasapuolisten neuvonantajien calzone (Only the best fillings—The calzone of impartial advisers, in Finnish). Etiikka.fi 2020 April 20; available at https://etiikka.fi/vain-parhaat-taytteet-tasapuolisten-neuvonantajien-calzone/ (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
50. Paterlini M. “Closing borders is ridiculous”: The epidemiologist behind Sweden’s controversial coronavirus strategy Anders Tegnell talks to Nature about the nation’s “trust-based” approach to tackling the pandemic. Nature News Q&A 21 April 2020; available at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01098-x (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
51. Kim S. Sweden’s coronavirus death toll “horrifying” says scientist behind country’s anti-lockdown strategy. Newsweek 2020 May 7; available at https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-coronavirus-deaths-children-lockdown-1502548?fbclid=IwAR2NO4yFH3cgfEI9pptaVbGwY8j3K_9L6yJQr6oY1uCh1DBWommJPSGO2Fk (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
52. Milne R. Architect of Sweden’s no-lockdown strategy insists it will pay off. Financial Times 2020 May 8; available at https://www.ft.com/content/a2b4c18c-a5e8-4edc-8047-ade4a82a548d (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
53. Lindeberg R. Man behind Sweden’s controversial virus strategy admits mistakes. Bloomberg 2020 June 3; available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/man-behind-sweden-s-virus-strategy-says-he-got-some-things-wrong?fbclid=IwAR0q1XNK99d-90Gxps3TNHKKFA2NpqbgSydpar_CSYQHytv9ckgWazBy-lk (last accessed 20 Dec 2020).
