Vaccine Passports and Political Legitimacy: A Public Reason Framework for Policymakers.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, taking its toll on people's lives around the world, vaccine passports remain a contentious topic of debate in most liberal democracies. While a small literature on vaccine passports has sprung up over the past few years that considers their ethical pros and cons, in this paper we focus on the question of when vaccine passports are politically legitimate. Specifically, we put forward a 'public reason ethics framework' for resolving ethical disputes and use the case of vaccine passports to demonstrate how it works. The framework walks users through a structured analysis of a vaccine passport proposal to determine whether the proposal can be publicly justified and is therefore legitimate. Use of this framework may also help policymakers to design more effective vaccine passports, by incorporating structured input from the public, and thereby better taking the public's interests and values into account. In short, a public reason ethics framework is meant to encourage better, more legitimate decision-making, resulting in policies that are ethically justifiable, legitimate and effective.

The Justice and Ontology of Gastrospaces.

In this paper, we establish gastrospaces as a subject of philosophical inquiry and an item for policy agendas. We first explain their political value, as key sites where members of liberal democratic societies can develop the capacity for a sense of justice and the capacity to form, revise, and pursue a conception of the good. Integrating political philosophy with analytic ontology, we then unfold a theoretical framework for gastrospaces: first, we show the limits of the concept of "third place;" second, we lay out the foundations for an ontological model of gastrospaces; third, we introduce five features of gastrospaces that connect their ontology with their political value and with the realization of justice goals. We conclude by briefly illustrating three potential levels of intervention concerning the design, use, and modification of gastrospaces: institutions, keepers, and users.

Food labels, autonomy, and the right (not) to know.

Food labelling has been overlooked in the emerging body of literature concerning the normative dimensions of food and drink policies. In this paper, I argue that arguments normally advanced in bioethics and medical ethics regarding the "right to know" and the "right not to know" can provide useful normative guidelines for critically assessing existing and proposed food labelling regimes. More specifically, I claim that food labelling ought to respect the legitimate interests and the autonomy of both consumers who seek knowledge about their food in order to make informed dietary choices and consumers who prefer to remain ignorant about the contents and effects of their food in order to avoid the emotional and psychological harm, or more simply the loss of enjoyment, which may result from receiving that information.