More Problems for the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm and Benefit
The counterfactual comparative account of harm and benefit (CCA) has several virtues, but it also faces serious problems. I argue that CCA is incompatible with the prudential and moral relevance of harm and benefit. Some possible ways to revise or restrict CCA, in order to avoid this conclusion, are...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
[2019]
|
| In: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2019, Volume: 22, Issue: 4, Pages: 795-807 |
| IxTheo Classification: | NBE Anthropology NCC Social ethics VA Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Contrastivism
B Prudential reasons B Benefit B Counterfactual comparative account B Harm B Contextualism |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Summary: | The counterfactual comparative account of harm and benefit (CCA) has several virtues, but it also faces serious problems. I argue that CCA is incompatible with the prudential and moral relevance of harm and benefit. Some possible ways to revise or restrict CCA, in order to avoid this conclusion, are discussed and found wanting. Finally, I try to show that appealing to the context-sensitivity of counterfactuals, or to the alleged contrastive nature of harm and benefit, does not provide a solution. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-018-9931-5 |