On the Harm of Imposing Risk of Harm

What is wrong with imposing pure risks, that is, risks that don’t materialize into harm? According to a popular response, imposing pure risks is pro tanto wrong, when and because risk itself is harmful. Call this the Harm View. Defenders of this view make one of the following two claims. On the Cons...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Maheshwari, Kritika (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2021
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2021, Volume: 24, Issue: 4, Pages: 965-980
Further subjects:B Harm View
B Preference
B Risk
B Autonomy
B Wrong-makers
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 180065815X
003 DE-627
005 20240416193407.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220502s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10677-021-10227-y  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)180065815X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP180065815X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Maheshwari, Kritika  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a On the Harm of Imposing Risk of Harm 
264 1 |c 2021 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a What is wrong with imposing pure risks, that is, risks that don’t materialize into harm? According to a popular response, imposing pure risks is pro tanto wrong, when and because risk itself is harmful. Call this the Harm View. Defenders of this view make one of the following two claims. On the Constitutive Claim, pure risk imposition is pro tanto wrong when and because risk constitutes diminishing one’s well-being viz. preference-frustration or setting-back their legitimate interest in autonomy. On the Contingent Claim, pure risk imposition is pro tanto wrong when and because risk has harmful consequences for the risk-bearers, such as psychological distress. This paper argues that the Harm View is plausible only on the Contingent Claim, but fails on the Constitutive Claim. In discussing the latter, I argue that both the preference and autonomy account fail to show that risk itself is constitutively harmful and thereby wrong. In discussing the former, I argue that risk itself is contingently harmful and thereby wrong but only in a narrow range of cases. I conclude that while the Harm View can sometimes explain the wrong of imposing risk when (and because) risk itself is contingently harmful, it is unsuccessful as a general, exhaustive account of what makes pure imposition wrong. 
650 4 |a Autonomy 
650 4 |a Harm View 
650 4 |a Preference 
650 4 |a Risk 
650 4 |a Wrong-makers 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 24(2021), 4, Seite 965-980  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320527093  |w (DE-600)2015306-5  |w (DE-576)104558555  |x 1572-8447  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:24  |g year:2021  |g number:4  |g pages:965-980 
856 |u https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10677-021-10227-y.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via crossref license)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-021-10227-y  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4128108154 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 180065815X 
LOK |0 005 20220502144644 
LOK |0 008 220502||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw