Doing Away with Skepticism about Harm

The concept of harm plays a central role in many philosophical discussions. There are numerous ethical theories, claims, and arguments that appeal to the concept of harm. However, some philosophers think that the concept of harm is not fit to play this role in philosophical theorizing. Bradley (2012...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Folland, Anna (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2025
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2025, Volume: 28, Issue: 1, Pages: 93-110
IxTheo Classification:NCA Ethics
Further subjects:B Critical Thinking
B Morality
B Experimental Philosophy
B Risk Theory
B Harm
B The Elimination Thesis
B Moral Significance
B Meta-Ethics
B Skepticism
B Philosophical Logic
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:The concept of harm plays a central role in many philosophical discussions. There are numerous ethical theories, claims, and arguments that appeal to the concept of harm. However, some philosophers think that the concept of harm is not fit to play this role in philosophical theorizing. Bradley (2012) argues that the concept is problematic to such an extent that we should do away with it. Bradley is not the only philosopher who doubts this concept’s usefulness, although others make more modest and suggestive skeptical claims. In this paper, I examine several claims in support of skepticism, which are explicitly embraced or hinted to in the literature. Some examples are the claims that the harm concept is defective and that harm is morally insignificant. Neither those claims nor others, I argue, yield a good case for skepticism about harm.
ISSN:1572-8447
Contains:Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s10677-024-10480-x