作为负审慎价值的伤害:对伤害的非比较解释

Q2 Arts and Humanities SATS Pub Date : 2020-09-15 DOI:10.1515/SATS.2019-0025
Tanya de Villiers-Botha
{"title":"作为负审慎价值的伤害:对伤害的非比较解释","authors":"Tanya de Villiers-Botha","doi":"10.1515/SATS.2019-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In recent attempts to define “ harm, ” comparative accounts of harm, specifically counterfactual comparative accounts, have been touted as the most promising approaches to defining the concept. Nevertheless, such accounts face serious difficulties. This has led to the call for the concept to simply be dropped from the moral lexicon altogether. I reject this call, arguing that non-comparative approaches to de fi ning harm have not been suf fi ciently explored. I develop such an account and claim that it avoids the dif fi culties faced by comparative accounts while not presupposing a substantive theory of well-being, which is taken as a key failing of non-comparative accounts. I conclude that this de fi nition renders a concept of harm that can be meaningfully employed in our moral discourse.","PeriodicalId":38824,"journal":{"name":"SATS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harm as Negative Prudential Value: A Non-Comparative Account of Harm\",\"authors\":\"Tanya de Villiers-Botha\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/SATS.2019-0025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": In recent attempts to define “ harm, ” comparative accounts of harm, specifically counterfactual comparative accounts, have been touted as the most promising approaches to defining the concept. Nevertheless, such accounts face serious difficulties. This has led to the call for the concept to simply be dropped from the moral lexicon altogether. I reject this call, arguing that non-comparative approaches to de fi ning harm have not been suf fi ciently explored. I develop such an account and claim that it avoids the dif fi culties faced by comparative accounts while not presupposing a substantive theory of well-being, which is taken as a key failing of non-comparative accounts. I conclude that this de fi nition renders a concept of harm that can be meaningfully employed in our moral discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SATS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SATS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/SATS.2019-0025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SATS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/SATS.2019-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近定义“伤害”的尝试中,伤害的比较描述,特别是反事实的比较描述,被吹捧为最有希望定义这个概念的方法。然而,这些帐户面临着严重的困难。这导致人们呼吁将这个概念完全从道德词汇中删除。我反对这一呼吁,认为定义危害的非比较性方法尚未得到充分探索。我发展了这样一个账户,并声称它避免了比较账户所面临的困难,同时没有预设一个实质性的幸福理论,这被认为是非比较账户的一个关键失败。我的结论是,这个定义提供了一个伤害的概念,可以在我们的道德话语中有意义地使用。
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 as Negative Prudential Value: A Non-Comparative Account of Harm
: In recent attempts to define “ harm, ” comparative accounts of harm, specifically counterfactual comparative accounts, have been touted as the most promising approaches to defining the concept. Nevertheless, such accounts face serious difficulties. This has led to the call for the concept to simply be dropped from the moral lexicon altogether. I reject this call, arguing that non-comparative approaches to de fi ning harm have not been suf fi ciently explored. I develop such an account and claim that it avoids the dif fi culties faced by comparative accounts while not presupposing a substantive theory of well-being, which is taken as a key failing of non-comparative accounts. I conclude that this de fi nition renders a concept of harm that can be meaningfully employed in our moral discourse.
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
SATS
SATS Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Do Logical Aliens Think? Frege’s Agent-Relative View of Logic’s Constitutive Role for Thinking Between Virtuous Trust and Distrust: A Model of Political Ideologies in Times of Challenged Political Parties Scientific Testability Following the Assumption of Insufficient Knowledge and Resources Journalists Gaining Trust Through Silencing of the Self Frontmatter
×
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