The harm principle as a mid-level principle? Three problems from the context of infectious disease control
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 25 (8):437-444 (2011)
Effective infectious disease control may require states to restrict the liberty of individuals. Since preventing harm to others is almost universally accepted as a legitimate (prima facie) reason for restricting the liberty of individuals, it seems plausible to employ a mid-level harm principle in infectious disease control. Moral practices like infectious disease control support – or even require – a certain level of theory-modesty. However, employing a mid-level harm principle in infectious disease control faces at least three problems. First, it is unclear what we gain by attaining convergence on a specific formulation of the harm principle. Likely candidates for convergence, a harm principle aimed at preventing harmful conduct, supplemented by considerations of effectiveness and always choosing the least intrusive means still leave ample room for normative disagreement. Second, while mid-level principles are sometimes put forward in response to the problem of normative theories attaching different weight to moral principles, employing a mid-level harm principle completely leaves open how to determine what weight to attach to it in application. Third, there appears to be a trade-off between attaining convergence and finding a formulation of the harm principle that can justify liberty-restrictions in all situations of contagion, including interventions that are commonly allowed. These are not reasons to abandon mid-level theorizing altogether. But there is no reason to be too theory-modest in applied ethics. Morally justifying e.g. if a liberty-restriction in infectious disease control is proportional to the aim of harm-prevention, promptly requires moving beyond the mid-level harm principle
|Keywords||liberty‐restrictions infectious disease control convergence mid‐level principles harm principle|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
M. L. Stein, B. O. Rump, M. E. E. Kretzschmar & J. E. van Steenbergen (2014). Social Networking Sites as a Tool for Contact Tracing: Urge for Ethical Framework for Normative Guidance. Public Health Ethics 7 (1):57-60.
Similar books and articles
Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
L. B. Meijboom Franck, Elsbeth Nina Cohen, Frans N. Stassen & W. A. Brom (2009). Beyond the Prevention of Harm: Animal Disease Policy as a Moral Question. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6).
Nils Holtug (2001). The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.
Fiona Woollard (2012). Have We Solved the Non-Identity Problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):677-690.
Karsten Klint Jensen (2002). The Moral Foundation of the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):39-55.
John Kilcullen (1981). Mill on Duty and Liberty. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (3):290 – 300.
Hamish Stewart (2009). The Limits of the Harm Principle. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):17-35.
Wendy E. Parmet (2008). J. S. Mill and the American Law of Quarantine. Public Health Ethics 1 (3):210-222.
Gerald Dworkin (2012). Harm and the Volenti Principle. Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1):309-321.
Ted Honderich (1967). Mill on Liberty. Inquiry 10 (1-4):292 – 297.
Andrew Kernohan (1995). Rights Against Polluters. Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.
Andrew Jason Cohen (2007). What the Liberal State Should Tolerate Within its Borders. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):479-513.
Wojciech Sadurski (1988). The Right, the Good and the Jurisprude. Law and Philosophy 7 (1):35 - 66.
D. S. Silva (2011). Smoking Bans and Persons with Schizophrenia: A Straightforward Use of the Harm Principle? Public Health Ethics 4 (2):143-148.
Re'em Segev (2006). Well-Being and Fairness. Philosophical Studies 131 (2):369-391.
Added to index2011-09-20
Total downloads18 ( #151,097 of 1,725,806 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #210,647 of 1,725,806 )
How can I increase my downloads?