Pandemic Ethics: Government Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

This thesis examines the ethical legitimacy of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic through the evaluative lens of Rule Consequentialism (RC). Focusing on the policies of mandatory vaccination, global vaccine distribution, and lockdowns, the study investigates whether these widely contested interventions can be justified as public rules that promote long-term societal wellbeing and can be reasonably internalised by diverse populations. Rather than treating Rule Consequentialism as a comprehensive moral theory, the thesis adopts it as a practical framework for assessing the normative validity of crisis-driven policies. It applies RC’s dual evaluative criteria—optimality (expected long-term benefit) and acceptability (internalisability under real-world institutional constraints)—to examine how public rules can balance urgency, fairness, and legitimacy. The analysis reveals that while no single policy is universally justifiable, many measures can be morally defensible when formulated as context-sensitive rules that satisfy both ethical standards. Chapter 1 identifies three ethically complex policy domains—mandatory vaccination, global vaccine distribution, and lockdowns—and explains why their legitimacy must be evaluated through a rule-based lens rather than through case-by-case pragmatism. Chapter 2 develops the Rule Consequentialist framework used throughout the thesis, outlining its core criteria of optimality and acceptability, distinguishing it from rival ethical approaches, and defending its applicability in crisis conditions. Chapter 3 argues that mandatory vaccination policies may be justified when tailored, proportionate, and accompanied by clear public communication. Chapter 4 critiques both nationalist and cosmopolitan extremes in vaccine allocation, proposing a pluralist rule-based approach that integrates fairness, feasibility, and international responsibility. Chapter 5 analyses lockdown and isolation policies, showing that their legitimacy depends on proportional duration, equitable burden distribution, and institutional safeguards. Chapter 6 revisits the core arguments, reflects on RC’s strengths and limitations in emergency contexts, and explores how its principles can inform ethically sustainable institutional design for future crises. The thesis concludes that Rule Consequentialism, when adapted to the complexities of public health emergencies, offers a rigorous yet flexible method for ethically evaluating policy rules. It supports a moderate, contextually grounded position that avoids both authoritarian overreach and libertarian minimalism, and contributes to a deeper understanding of how public ethics can guide collective action in times of crisis.