Phantom premise and a shape-shifting ism: reply to Hassoun

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In ‘Against vaccine nationalism’, Nicole Hassoun misrepresents our argument, distorts our position and ignores crucial distinctions we present in our article, ‘Love thy neighbor? Allocating vaccines in a world of competing obligations’. She has created a strawman that does not resemble our position. In this reply, we address two features of ‘Against vaccine nationalism’. First, we address a phantom premise. Hassoun misattributes to us a thesis, according to which citizen-directed duties are stronger than noncitizen-directed duties. This thesis is a figment of her imagination, not a fragment of our argument. Second, we address a shape-shifting ism. Ambiguity attaches to ‘vaccine nationalism,’ ambiguity that Hassoun exploits despite our distinguishing various meanings of the phrase. As a result, the type of vaccine nationalism she argues against is not the type we defend.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
FERPPA-6
Upload history
First archival date: 2021-05-11
Latest version: 2 (2021-05-12)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2021-05-08

Total views
29 ( #60,044 of 2,448,312 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
29 ( #22,895 of 2,448,312 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.