Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86 (2011)
|Abstract||According to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, it is more difficult to justify doing harm than it is to justify allowing harm. Enabling harm consists in withdrawing an obstacle that would, if left in place, prevent a pre-existing causal sequence from leading to foreseen harm. There has been a lively debate concerning the moral status of enabling harm. According to some (e.g. McMahan, Vihvelin and Tomkow), many cases of enabling harm are morally indistinguishable from doing harm. Others (e.g. Foot, Hanser) support the Equivalence Hypothesis, according to which enabling harm is morally equivalent to allowing harm. Here I argue that there is every reason to embrace, and no reason to reject, the Equivalence Hypothesis|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Fiery Cushman, Liane Young & Marc Hauser (2006). The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment. Psychological Science 17 (12):1082-1089.
Alison Hills (2003). Defending Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.
Thomas Douglas (2013). Human Enhancement and Supra-Personal Moral Status. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):473-497.
Steven Luper (2007). Mortal Harm. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
Timothy Hall (2008). Doing Harm, Allowing Harm, and Denying Resources. Journal of Moral Philosophy 5 (1):50-76.
Joel Feinberg (1984). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Fiona Woollard (2010). Doing/Allowing and the Deliberative Requirement. Ratio 23 (2):199-216.
Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
Shlomit Harrosh (2011). Identifying Harms. Bioethics 26 (9):493-498.
Added to index2010-01-21
Total downloads53 ( #23,131 of 722,857 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,857 )
How can I increase my downloads?