In the protests carried out during 2022 and 2023 in Peru, the majority of the press pointed out the presence of protest fomenters playing a significant causal role in the participation of the other protesters. On the other hand, empirical evidence about our intuitions on moral disagreements (Khoo Knobe 2018) seems to suggest that the difference in cultural background of the disagreeing parties plays a role in our perception of whether both parties are holding something correct in their own terms. In this article, I argue that to propose a specific kind of protest fomenters has the communicational effect of ruling out the option of thinking of the participants of the conflict as holding something correct at the same time.

This article studies the Vacunagate: a scandal during the early-2021 in Peru due to irregular inoculation of the Sinopharm candidate vaccine against COVID-19 during its experimental stage. We analyze the morality of this case in order to elucidate the public discussion on the conduct and supervision of clinical trials within the context of a Pandemic. We evaluate whether two actions were morally justifiable: (1) the use of a vaccine outside of a clinical trial, and (2) prioritizing some groups in that unusual allocation. These groups are (i) research staff of the clinical trial, (ii) public health officials leading the fight against the Pandemic, (iii) human acquaintances of the first two groups, and (iv) others. As this article is on applied ethics, it follows its methodology: we define the moral, or philosophical, framework and its later applied to the case. The ethical framework for o...