Freedom as Non‐Domination, Rules, and the Pandemic

This paper examines the ways in which public health measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 impacted the freedom of those affected, understanding freedom as non-domination. It argues that, in the absence of effective vaccines, individuals who carry a virus with the profile of COVID-19 have the capacity to impose high risks of severe illness and death on other people. But formal and informal rules can help control this capacity, supporting the freedom of people in certain respects. With regard to governmental enforcement of public health measures such as lockdowns, it argues that-depending on the form they take-they can be consistent with the enjoyment of freedom as non-domination of the population. Still, for this to be the case, some demanding conditions must be met. First, the government must continue to operate under a number of suitable checks. Second, the relevant policies must protect the basic interests of all members of the population. The paper also responds to criticisms of this account of freedom, stressing the connection between the secure enjoyment of basic liberties and the enforcement of formal and informal rules.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioethics
Published
2025-07-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70017
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Freedom as Non‐Domination, Rules, and the Pandemic

M. Victoria Costa
1 citations
Bioethics
Political Philosophy and Ethics
8.52
article

Freedom as Non‐Domination, Rules, and the Pandemic

M. Victoria Costa
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This paper examines the ways in which public health measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 impacted the freedom of those affected, understanding freedom as non-domination. It argues that, in the absence of effective vaccines, individuals who carry a virus with the profile of COVID-19 have the capacity to impose high risks of severe illness and death on other people. But formal and informal rules can help control this capacity, supporting the freedom of people in certain respects. With regard to governmental enforcement of public health measures such as lockdowns, it argues that-depending on the form they take-they can be consistent with the enjoyment of freedom as non-domination of the population. Still, for this to be the case, some demanding conditions must be met. First, the government must continue to operate under a number of suitable checks. Second, the relevant policies must protect the basic interests of all members of the population. The paper also responds to criticisms of this account of freedom, stressing the connection between the secure enjoyment of basic liberties and the enforcement of formal and informal rules.

BioethicsVol. 39(9)
William & Mary (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
8.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.