Disagreement over vaccination programmes: deep or merely complex and why does it matter?

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Bioethics
• Social Science

Background:

• The vaccination debate is often characterized by intractable disagreements.
• Some philosophical perspectives suggest these deep disagreements necessitate confrontational approaches.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the implications of conceptualizing vaccination debates as 'deep disagreements'.
• To re-evaluate the justification of non-coercive, non-reasoned strategies for increasing vaccination rates.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of 'deep disagreement' as defined by Robert Fogelin.
• Moral and rational argumentation applied to vaccination policy and public health strategies.

Main Results:

• Appreciating a disagreement as 'deep' can positively alter moral assessments of individuals.
• It clarifies the boundaries of argumentation obligations in moral disputes.
• It incentivizes seeking alternative methods for managing intractable disagreements.

Conclusions:

• Viewing vaccination debates as deep disagreements offers a framework for understanding and potentially resolving impasses.
• Non-coercive strategies, while seemingly irrational, may be justifiable responses to deep moral disagreements in public health contexts.