We often use certain terms as if, in using them, they contain a decided moral judgment of an action. Especially in public health ethics, this is not always the case, as shown most starkly by recent (mis)use of the terms "solidarity" and "coercion" to label, and thereby judge, public health actions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyze the terms solidarity and coercion, and argue that they cannot be used alone as moral judgements of public health actions. Rather, they are better considered as descriptive terms that are merely frequent proxies for normative terms such as justice or utility. We illustrate our argument by reference to three case studies: school reopenings in the USA, mandatory isolation measures in the UK, and vaccine distribution within the EU.
Johnson et al. (Fri,) studied this question.