Doing Harm: A Reply to Klocksiem

IF 1.2 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Utilitas Pub Date : 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1017/s0953820823000079
Erik Carlson, Jens Johansson, Olle Risberg
{"title":"Doing Harm: A Reply to Klocksiem","authors":"Erik Carlson, Jens Johansson, Olle Risberg","doi":"10.1017/s0953820823000079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent article in this journal, Justin Klocksiem proposes a novel response to the widely discussed failure to benefit problem for the counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA). According to Klocksiem, proponents of CCA can deal with this problem by distinguishing between facts about there being harm and facts about an agent's having done harm. In this reply, we raise three sets of problems for Klocksiem's approach.","PeriodicalId":45896,"journal":{"name":"Utilitas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilitas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820823000079","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Justin Klocksiem proposes a novel response to the widely discussed failure to benefit problem for the counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA). According to Klocksiem, proponents of CCA can deal with this problem by distinguishing between facts about there being harm and facts about an agent's having done harm. In this reply, we raise three sets of problems for Klocksiem's approach.
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
做伤害:对Klocksiem的回复
在本刊最近的一篇文章中,Justin Klocksiem对广泛讨论的反事实伤害比较解释(CCA)的未能受益问题提出了一种新颖的回应。根据Klocksiem的说法,CCA的支持者可以通过区分存在伤害的事实和代理人已经造成伤害的事实来处理这个问题。在这个回答中,我们对Klocksiem的方法提出了三组问题。
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
Utilitas
Utilitas PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
43
期刊最新文献
Classic Hedonism Reconsidered Partial Aggregation for Prioritarians Posthumous Harm and Changing Desires Does the Patterned View Avoid the Ideal Worlds Objection? Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen, The Value Gap (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), pp. xv + 215.
×
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