Search

V človeški zgodovini so bile nalezljive bolezni in epidemični izbruhi glavni vzroki smrti. Za omejitev širjenja nalezljive bolezni je potrebno doseči kolektivno imunost, ki pa jo danes lahko, po zaslugi moderne medicine, hitreje dosežemo s cepljenjem. Cepljenje zaščiti posameznika, vendar je njegov primaren cilj zagotavljanje zdravja celotne populacije, kar pa zahteva poseg v človekovo pravico do samoodločanja in pravico do telesne avtonomije. Zato se pri tem odprejo etična vprašanja o razmerju med posameznikovim interesom in svobodo ter integriteto in zdravjem populacije. Ker pa je za dosego kolektivne imunosti potrebna zadostna precepljenost, se odpira tudi vprašanje obveznega cepljenja, ki je v nekaterih državah za določene bolezni že uveljavljeno – tudi v Sloveniji. V tej nalogi bomo etično vprašanje cepljenja in obveznega cepljenja pogledali s stališča utilitarizma, po katerem velja, da je pravilno in moralno dejanje tisto, ki vodi do največje količine koristi za največje število ljudi. In human history, infectious diseases and epidemic outbreaks have been the main causes of death. To limit the spread of an infectious disease, it is necessary to achieve collective immunity, which today, thanks to modern medicine, can be achieved more quickly by vaccination. Vaccination protects the individual, but its primary goal is to ensure the health of the entire population, which requires compromising the human right to self-determination and the right to bodily autonomy. Thus, ethical questions arise about the relationship between individual interest, freedom, and the integrity and health of the population. However, since a broad vaccination campaign is necessary to achieve collective immunity, in certain countries, including Slovenia, the issue of mandatory vaccination (already established for certain diseases) is also raised. In this thesis, we will look at the ethical issue of vaccination and mandatory vaccination from the utilitarian point of view, according to which the just and moral action is the one that leads to the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest number of people.

V diplomskem delu izhajamo iz teze, da ni vsa teorija enako primerna za razumevanje pandemije covida-19 in ukrepov zoper njo, zlasti tista, ki biopolitike ne more misliti v afirmativnem smislu. Biopolitiko opredelimo kot tehnologijo oblasti, ki deluje na biološke poteze populacije, in jo tako razločimo od predhodnih oblastnih tehnologij. Pojasnimo, da je od 18. stoletja dalje predmet izvajanja oblasti populacija, in na kratko obravnavamo zgodovinske zasnove upravljanja s populacijami. Nato obnovimo genealogijo rase skozi diskurz vojne, pri čemer raso s Foucaultom razumemo kot skupino ljudi z določenimi biološkimi lastnostmi. Obravnavamo odnos med temi lastnostmi ter vlogo države in kapitalističnega trga v neoliberalizmu ter ugotovimo, da je v pandemiji ključna vloga države, pri čemer posebno pozornost posvetimo biopolitiki teles žensk. Navedemo tudi vlogo prava in pokažemo, da totalitarizem ni ustrezen koncept za mišljenje biopolitike. Kritično prikažemo humanizem in navedemo korist antihumanističnega pristopa za razumevanje pandemije. Prikažemo tudi ključno vlogo ustreznega dojemanja človekovega odnosa do znanosti in tehnologije, nakar razložimo sodobno delovanje tehnologije v odnosu do biopolitike in naštejemo nekaj primerov uporabe tehnologije. The thesis follows the principle that not all theory is equally suitable for understanding the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures against it, especially that which cannot conceptualize biopolitics in an affirmative sense. We define biopolitics as a technology of power that acts on the biological features of the population, and we thus distinguish it from previous technologies of power. We explain that since the 18th century, the object of the exercising of power has been the population, and we briefly discuss historical concepts of population management. We then reconstruct the genealogy of race through the discourse of war, thereby understanding race with Foucault as a group of people with certain biological characteristics. We discuss the relationship between these features and the role of the state and the capitalist market in neoliberalism, and find that the state plays a key role in the pandemic, while paying particular attention to the biopolitics of women's bodies. We also state the role of the law and show that totalitarianism is not an appropriate concept for conceptualizing biopolitics. We critically portray humanism and state the benefit of an anti-humanist approach to understanding the pandemic. We also show the key role of an appropriate perception of the relationship between human and science and technology, after which we explain the contemporary functioning of technology in relation to biopolitics and list some examples of the use of technology.