概率、常态和反对风险强加的权利

Martin Smith
{"title":"概率、常态和反对风险强加的权利","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
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
Probability, Normalcy, and the Right against Risk Imposition
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.   
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
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