Probability, Normalcy, and the Right against Risk Imposition

Martin Smith
{"title":"Probability, Normalcy, and the Right against Risk Imposition","authors":"Martin Smith","doi":"10.26556/jesp.v27i3.3092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many philosophers accept that, as well as having a right that others not harm us, we also have a right that others not subject us to a risk of harm.  And yet, when we attempt to spell out precisely what this ‘right against risk imposition’ involves, we encounter a series of notorious puzzles.  Existing attempts to deal with these puzzles have tended to focus on the nature of rights – but I propose an approach that focusses instead on the nature of risk.  The key move is to distinguish two different ways in which to conceptualise the risk that a given action presents – one of which is linked to the notion of probability and the other to the notion of normalcy.   ","PeriodicalId":508700,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v27i3.3092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many philosophers accept that, as well as having a right that others not harm us, we also have a right that others not subject us to a risk of harm.  And yet, when we attempt to spell out precisely what this ‘right against risk imposition’ involves, we encounter a series of notorious puzzles.  Existing attempts to deal with these puzzles have tended to focus on the nature of rights – but I propose an approach that focusses instead on the nature of risk.  The key move is to distinguish two different ways in which to conceptualise the risk that a given action presents – one of which is linked to the notion of probability and the other to the notion of normalcy.   
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
概率、常态和反对风险强加的权利
许多哲学家都认为,我们不仅有权不被他人伤害,还有权不被他人强加伤害的风险。 然而,当我们试图准确地阐明这种 "免受风险强加的权利 "的内涵时,却遇到了一系列众所周知的难题。 现有的解决这些难题的尝试往往侧重于权利的性质--但我提出了一种侧重于风险性质的方法。 关键之举在于区分出两种不同的方式,将特定行为所带来的风险概念化--其中一种与概率概念相关,另一种与正常性概念相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Person as Environmentally Integrated Not Living My Best Life Murderers on the Ballot Paper The Challenge for Coronavirus Vaccine Testing Three Kinds of Prioritarianism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1