Moralization and Mismoralization in Public Health

Abstract

Moralization is a social-psychological process through which morally neutral issues take on moral significance. Often linked to health and disease, moralization may sometimes lead to good outcomes; yet moralization is often detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. It is therefore important to be able to identify when moralization is inappropriate. In this paper, we offer a systematic normative approach to the evaluation of moralization. We introduce and develop the concept of ‘mismoralization’, which is when moralization is metaethically unjustified. In order to identify mismoralization, we argue that one must engage in metaethical analysis of moralization processes while paying close attention to the relevant facts. We briefly discuss one historical example (tuberculosis) and two contemporary cases related to COVID-19 (infection and vaccination status) that we contend to have been mismoralized in public health. We propose a remedy of de-moralization that begins by identifying mismoralization and that proceeds by neutralizing inapt moral content. De-moralization calls for epistemic and moral humility. It should lead us to pull away from our tendency to moralize—as individuals and as social groups—whenever and wherever moralization is unjustified.

Altruistic Vaccination: Insights from Two Focus Group Studies

“…An interesting aspect of the discussion among CCWs was that they would consider coercive mandates to be more acceptable should they also be extended to other people in similar professions. There has been recent debate about the moralization of vaccination decisions, which may at times be morally inappropriate and which may have pervasive negative consequences [ 37 ]. It could be that the reluctance of CCWs to be singled out for vaccine mandates at least partly reflects their perception of moralized social norms for their particular occupation.…”

The balance of risks and benefits in the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” literature: An umbrella review

“…Further, we question the "VH-as-a-problem" construct because the object of study is unverifiable (122), meaning that no amount of empirical evidence would persuade researchers that those who "hesitate" to embrace COVID-19 vaccination may have very good reasons to do so, thus are a problem other than to those who believe on this problems' existence. We are also concerned about the assumption that VH "experts" and policy makers appear to be justified to "change" the "targets" of their actionsby correcting "misperceptions" and "educating" about the "right" decisions (123). This attitude ignores long-standing ethical principles, such as informed consent, violates the dignity of human beings by treating them as contingent means towards ostensibly higher societal goals, and neglects the long history of medical and public health interventions implemented "for [their] own good" and "in the name of health" (124) (p. 87) that all too often turned out to be morally repugnant.…”

The role of lifestyles in the commitment to the Unites Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3. An exploratory study

“…Some authors call "mismoralization" whenever moralisation is ethically unjustified (Kraaijeveld and Jamrozik, 2022). Historical examples of mismoralisation can be found in the literature (Kraaijeveld and Jamrozik, 2022).…”

“…Although moralising health behaviours can sometimes lead to good results, it may if not carefully thought through, prove harmful to individuals and society as a whole – it could lead to less social cohesion and more stratification of society (Täuber, 2018). Some authors call “mismoralization” whenever moralisation is ethically unjustified (Kraaijeveld and Jamrozik, 2022). Historical examples of mismoralisation can be found in the literature (Kraaijeveld and Jamrozik, 2022).…”