The harm principle as a mid-level principle? Three problems from the context of infectious disease control
Bioethics 25 (8):437-444 (2011)
|Abstract||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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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 downloads9 ( #115,463 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?