Samuel Director
Brown University
Christopher Freiman
College of William and Mary
In response to the spread of COVID-19, governments across the world have, with very few exceptions, enacted sweeping restrictive lockdown policies that impede citizens’ freedom to move, work, and assemble. This paper critically responds to the central arguments for restrictive lockdown legislation. We build our critique on the following assumption: public policy that enjoys virtually unanimous support worldwide should be justified by uncontroversial moral principles. We argue that that the virtually unanimous support in favor of restrictive lockdowns is not adequately justified by the arguments given in favor of them. Importantly, this is not to say that states ought not impose restrictive lockdown measures, but rather that the extent of the acceptance of these measures is not proportionate to the strength of the arguments for lockdowns. We begin by exploring the case for restrictive lockdowns. We first argue that several of the principles that are used to justify the lockdowns yield unexpectedly revisionary implications for other political problems that many would be unwilling to accept. We then outline what we consider the strongest argument for a lockdown—namely, that its net welfare benefits are great enough to defeat the moral presumption against restricting citizens’ civil liberties to move, work, and assemble. However, we give a number of reasons for doubting that the lockdown’s net welfare benefits are, in fact, sufficiently high to defeat the presumption against it.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Lockdown, Public Good and Equality During COVID-19.Lucy Frith - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (11):713-714.
Lockdown Politics: A Response to Panagiotis Sotiris.Gareth Dale - 2021 - Historical Materialism 29 (1):247-262.
Lockdown Politics: A Response to Panagiotis Sotiris.Gareth Dale - forthcoming - Historical Materialism:1-16.
COVID-19: Against a Lockdown Approach.Steven R. Kraaijeveld - 2020 - Asian Bioethics Review 13 (2):195-212.
Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence.Philippe van Basshuysen & Lucie White - 2021 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (4):405-428.
Justifying Lockdown.Christian Barry & Seth Lazar - 2020 - Ethics and International Affairs 2020.


Added to PP index

Total views
1,065 ( #5,865 of 2,520,891 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
133 ( #4,807 of 2,520,891 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes