Explore the vast range of titles available.

Medical populism, as a political style of handling the challenges of a public health crisis, has primarily been analyzed in terms of its influence on the efficacy of governmental efforts to meet the challenges of the current pandemic (such as those related to testing, vaccination, and community restrictions). As these efforts have moral consequences (they, for instance, will affect people’s wellbeing and may lead to suffering, loss of opportunities, and unfair distributions), an analysis of the ethics of medical populism is much needed. In this essay, we address the need to analyze the moral dimension of medical populism by relating it to issues in healthcare ethics. Specifically, we identify the moral significance of medical populism by demonstrating how it contributes to the failure of governments to discharge their moral duty to provide for the healthcare needs of their people, and, correlatively, to the violation of the people’s moral right to healthcare. We argue that with medical populism, governments tend to mishandle the constraints that would morally justify their shortcomings in fulfilling such duty. We identify such constraints as mainly referring to the governments’ given (economic and institutional) capacities and the relative degree of incumbency of their competing duties.

La suposición de que el Tractatus de Wittgenstein propone una cierta metafísica ha dado lugar a una controversia sobre el estatus ontológico de los objetos tractarianos. Se ha debatido, por ejemplo, si estos objetos consisten sólo en particulares o tanto en particulares como en universales; si son entidades físicas, fenoménicas o fenomenológicas; y si corresponden a los objetos de conocimiento directo de Russell o a los fenómenos y la sustancia de Kant. En este ensayo, apoyo la opinión de Ishiguro de que estos objetos, al ser conceptos formales, son ontológicamente neutrales y, por lo tanto, que no son identificables con ningún tipo ontológico de entidades. Desarrollaré la coherencia de este punto de vista centrándome en la dependencia proposicional del significado de los nombres tractarianos. Después de mostrar por qué algunos argumentos en favor de atribuir una teoría russelliana del significado a estos nombres no funcionan, muestro por qué la explicación de Ishiguro de los objetos y nombres tractarianos proporciona una mejor explicación de la inalterabilidad de estos objetos. The supposition that Wittgenstein’s Tractatus advances a certain metaphysics has given rise to a controversy over the ontological status of his Tractarian objects. It has been debated, for instance, whether these objects consist only of particulars or of both particulars and universals; whether they are physical, phenomenal, or phenomenological entities; and whether they correspond to Russell’s objects of acquaintance or Kant’s phenomena and substance. In this essay, I endorse Ishiguro’s view that these objects, being formal concepts, are ontologically neutral and thus are not identifiable with any ontological kind of entities. I elaborate on the coherence of this view with the propositional dependence of the meaning of Tractarian names. After showing why some arguments for ascribing a Russellian theory of meaning to these names do not work, I demonstrate why Ishiguro’s account of Tractarian objects and names provides a better explanation of the unalterability of these objects.

Medical populism, as a political style of handling the challenges of a public health crisis, has primarily been analyzed in terms of its influence on the efficacy of governmental efforts to meet the challenges of the current pandemic (such as those related to testing, vaccination, and community restrictions). As these efforts have moral consequences (they, for instance, will affect people's wellbeing and may lead to suffering, loss of opportunities, and unfair distributions), an analysis of the ethics of medical populism is much needed. In this essay, we address the need to analyze the moral dimension of medical populism by relating it to issues in healthcare ethics. Specifically, we identify the moral significance of medical populism by demonstrating how it contributes to the failure of governments to discharge their moral duty to provide for the healthcare needs of their people, and, correlatively, to the violation of the people's moral right to healthcare. We argue that with medical populism, governments tend to mishandle the constraints that would morally justify their shortcomings in fulfilling such duty. We identify such constraints as mainly referring to the governments' given (economic and institutional) capacities and the relative degree of incumbency of their competing duties. Keywords: medical populism, populism, right to healthcare, pandemic, healthcare