Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2021;31(4):447-451. doi: 10.1353/ken.2021.0023.
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.
在“封锁是否合理?回归事实和证据”一文中,我们认为,Eric Winsberg、Jason Brennan 和 Chris Surprenant 未能证明最初的 COVID-19 封锁是不合理的,因为他们的论点基于错误的事实主张。正如本卷中的回应所明确指出的那样,作者错误地认为我们一直在为实施封锁辩护。在这里,我们澄清了我们原始论文的目标,并强调在如此有争议的领域进行哲学论证时正确把握事实的重要性。