伤害

A. Norcross
{"title":"伤害","authors":"A. Norcross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198844990.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard consequentialist account of harm is given by the following principle: HARM An act A harms a person P just in case P is worse off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. An act A benefits a person P just in case P is better off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. In most cases, there are multiple different alternatives, and no context-free method of determining which is the appropriate one with which to compare A. Judgments of harm are thus always implicitly relative to alternatives. There is no fundamental fact of the form: A really harms (or benefits) P.","PeriodicalId":260075,"journal":{"name":"Morality by Degrees","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harm\",\"authors\":\"A. Norcross\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198844990.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standard consequentialist account of harm is given by the following principle: HARM An act A harms a person P just in case P is worse off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. An act A benefits a person P just in case P is better off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. In most cases, there are multiple different alternatives, and no context-free method of determining which is the appropriate one with which to compare A. Judgments of harm are thus always implicitly relative to alternatives. There is no fundamental fact of the form: A really harms (or benefits) P.\",\"PeriodicalId\":260075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morality by Degrees\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morality by Degrees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844990.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morality by Degrees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844990.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

结果主义对伤害的标准解释是这样的,伤害行为A伤害了P,只是在A的结果下,P的情况比没有实施A的情况下更糟。行为A对P有利只是因为如果P因为A而变得更好,而不是因为A而变得更好。在大多数情况下,有多种不同的选择,没有上下文无关的方法来确定哪一个是合适的比较,因此,伤害的判断总是隐含地相对于选择。没有基本事实的形式:A真的伤害(或好处)P。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Harm
The standard consequentialist account of harm is given by the following principle: HARM An act A harms a person P just in case P is worse off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. An act A benefits a person P just in case P is better off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. In most cases, there are multiple different alternatives, and no context-free method of determining which is the appropriate one with which to compare A. Judgments of harm are thus always implicitly relative to alternatives. There is no fundamental fact of the form: A really harms (or benefits) P.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Good and Bad Actions Harm
×
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