Reply to Klocksiem on the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm
In a recent article in this journal, I claimed that the widely held counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA) violates two very plausible principles about harm and prudential reasons. Justin Klocksiem argues, in a reply, that CCA is in fact compatible with these principles. In this rejoinder,...
Published in: | Ethical theory and moral practice |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
[2020]
|
In: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
|
Further subjects: | B
Benefit
B Counterfactual comparative account B Harm B Reason for action |
Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Resolving-System) |
Summary: | In a recent article in this journal, I claimed that the widely held counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA) violates two very plausible principles about harm and prudential reasons. Justin Klocksiem argues, in a reply, that CCA is in fact compatible with these principles. In this rejoinder, I shall try to show that Klocksiem’s defense of CCA fails. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-020-10071-6 |