Search results for 'Harm Goris' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Harm Goris (Tilburg University)
  1. Paul van Geest, Harm J. M. J. Goris, Carlo Leget & Mishtooni Bose (eds.) (2002). Aquinas as Authority: A Collection of Studies Presented at the Second Conference of the Thomas Insituut Te Utrecht, December 14-16, 2000. [REVIEW] Peeters.score: 240.0
    This book collects a selection of the studies that were presented (Peeters 2001).
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Harm Goris (2003). The Angelic Doctor and Angelic Speech: The Development of Thomas Aquinas's Thought on How Angels Communicate. Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11 (01):87-105.score: 240.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Harm Goris (2001). Tense Logic in 13th-Century Theology. Vivarium 39 (2):161-184.score: 240.0
  4. Harm J. M. J. Goris, Herwi Rikhof & Henk J. M. Schoot (eds.) (2009). Divine Transcendence and Immanence in the Work of Thomas Aquinas: A Collection of Studies Presented at the Third Conference of the Thomas Instituut Te Utrecht, December 15-17, 2005. [REVIEW] Peeters.score: 240.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Sean Otto (2011). Divine Transcendence and Immanence in the Work of Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Harm Goris, Herwi Rikhof, and Henk Schoot. Heythrop Journal 52 (1):130-131.score: 90.0
  6. Richard Gaskin (1998). Harm J. M. J. Goris. Free Creatures of an Eternal God: Thomas Aquinas on God's Infallible Foreknowledge and Irresistible Will. (Nijmegan: Thomas Instituut Te Utrecht, 1997.) Pp. 345, 1260 BF. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 34 (4):497-507.score: 72.0
  7. Steven L. Davis (2003). The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (4):387-394.score: 18.0
    Based on his theory of animalrights, Regan concludes that humans are morallyobligated to consume a vegetarian or vegandiet. When it was pointed out to him that evena vegan diet results in the loss of manyanimals of the field, he said that while thatmay be true, we are still obligated to consumea vegetarian/vegan diet because in total itwould cause the least harm to animals (LeastHarm Principle, or LHP) as compared to currentagriculture. But is that conclusion valid? Isit possible that some (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.score: 18.0
    According to the Harm Principle, roughly, the state may coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others. Clearly, this principle depends crucially on what we understand by harm. Thus, if any sort of negative effect on a person may count as a harm, the Harm Principle will fail to sufficiently protect individual liberty. Therefore, a more subtle concept of harm is needed. I consider various possible conceptions and argue that none (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Jessica Wolfendale (2007). My Avatar, My Self: Virtual Harm and Attachment. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 9 (2):111-119.score: 18.0
    Multi-user online environments involve millions of participants world-wide. In these online communities participants can use their online personas – avatars – to chat, fight, make friends, have sex, kill monsters and even get married. Unfortunately participants can also use their avatars to stalk, kill, sexually assault, steal from and torture each other. Despite attempts to minimise the likelihood of interpersonal virtual harm, programmers cannot remove all possibility of online deviant behaviour. Participants are often greatly distressed when their avatars are (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Douglas Diekema (2004). Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.score: 18.0
    Minors are generally considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care, and parents or guardians are empowered to make those decisions on their behalf. Parental authority is not absolute, however, and when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child, the state may intervene. The best interests standard is the threshold most frequently employed in challenging a parent''s refusal to provide consent for a child''s medical care. In this paper, I will argue that the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Stephan Blatti (2012). Death's Distinctive Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30.score: 18.0
    Despite widespread support for the claim that death can harm the one who dies, debate continues over how to rescue this harm thesis (HT) from Epicurus’s challenge. Disagreements focus on two of the three issues that any defense of HT must resolve: the subject of death’s harm and the timing of its injury. About the nature of death’s harm, however, a consensus has emerged around the view that death harms a subject (when it does) by depriving (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Matthew C. Halteman (2011). Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):122-131.score: 18.0
    Skeptics of the moral case against industrial farming often assert that harm to animals in industrial systems is limited to isolated instances of abuse that do not reflect standard practice and thus do not merit criticism of the industry at large. I argue that even if skeptics are correct that abuse is the exception rather than the rule, they must still answer for two additional varieties of serious harm to animals that are pervasive in industrial systems: procedural (...) and institutional oppression. That procedural and institutional harms create conditions under which abuse is virtually inevitable only increases the skeptic's burden. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Mark Sagoff (2009). Environmental Harm: Political Not Biological. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (1):81-88.score: 18.0
    In their fine paper, Evans et al. (2009) discuss the proposition that invasive non-native species (INS) are harmful. The question to ask is, “Harmful to whom?” Pathogens that make people sick and pests that damage their property—crops, for example—cause harms of kinds long understood in common law and recognized by public agencies. The concept of “harm to the environment,” in contrast, has no standing in common law or legislation, no meaning for any empirical science, and no basis in a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Douglas W. Portmore (2007). Desire Fulfillment and Posthumous Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (1):27 - 38.score: 18.0
    This paper argues that the standard account of posthumous harm is untenable. The standard account presupposes the desire-fulfillment theory of welfare, but I argue that no plausible version of this theory can allow for the possibility of posthumous harm. I argue that there are, at least, two problems with the standard account from the perspective of a desire-fulfillment theorist. First, as most desire-fulfillment theorists acknowledge, the theory must be restricted in such a way that only those desires that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Christian Barry, Matthew Lindauer & Gerhard Øverland (forthcoming). Doing, Allowing, and Enabling Harm: An Empirical Investigation. In Joshua Knobe, Tania Lombrozo & Shaun Nichols (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    Traditionally, moral philosophers have distinguished between doing and allowing harm, and have normally proceeded as if this bipartite distinction can exhaustively characterize all cases of human conduct involving harm. By contrast, cognitive scientists and psychologists studying causal judgment have investigated the concept ‘enable’ as distinct from the concept ‘cause’ and other causal terms. Empirical work on ‘enable’ and its employment has generally not focused on cases where human agents enable harm. In this paper, we present new empirical (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2012). The Concept of Harm and the Significance of Normality. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3):318.score: 18.0
    Many believe that severe intellectual impairment, blindness or dying young amount to serious harm and disadvantage. It is also increasingly denied that it matters, from a moral point of view, whether something is biologically normal to humans. We show that these two claims are in serious tension. It is hard explain how, if we do not ascribe some deep moral significance to human nature or biological normality, we could distinguish severe intellectual impairment or blindness from the vast list of (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Hamish Stewart (2009). The Limits of the Harm Principle. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):17-35.score: 18.0
    The harm principle, understood as the normative requirement that conduct should be criminalized only if it is harmful, has difficulty in dealing with those core cases of criminal wrongdoing that can occur without causing any direct harm. Advocates of the harm principle typically find it implausible to hold that these core cases should not be crimes and so usually seek out some indirect harm that can justify criminalizing the seemingly harmless conduct. But (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Massimo Renzo (2010). A Criticism of the International Harm Principle. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3):267-282.score: 18.0
    According to the received view crimes like torture, rape, enslavement or enforced prostitution are domestic crimes if they are committed as isolated or sporadic events, but become crimes against humanity when they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack’ against a civilian population. Only in the latter case can these crimes be prosecuted by the international community. One of the most influential accounts of this idea is Larry May’s International Harm Principle, which states that crimes against (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Robin Mackenzie (2011). The Neuroethics of Pleasure and Addiction in Public Health Strategies Moving Beyond Harm Reduction: Funding the Creation of Non-Addictive Drugs and Taxonomies of Pleasure. Neuroethics 4 (2):103-117.score: 18.0
    We are unlikely to stop seeking pleasure, as this would prejudice our health and well-being. Yet many psychoactive substances providing pleasure are outlawed as illicit recreational drugs, despite the fact that only some of them are addictive to some people. Efforts to redress their prohibition, or to reform legislation so that penalties are proportionate to harm have largely failed. Yet, if choices over seeking pleasure are ethical insofar as they avoid harm to oneself or others, public health strategies (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Anthony Wrigley (2012). Harm to Future Persons: Non-Identity Problems and Counterpart Solutions. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):175-190.score: 18.0
    Non-Identity arguments have a pervasive but sometimes counter-intuitive grip on certain key areas in ethics. As a result, there has been limited success in supporting the alternative view that our choices concerning future generations can be considered harmful on any sort of person-affecting principle. However, as the Non-Identity Problem relies overtly on certain metaphysical assumptions, plausible alternatives to these foundations can substantially undermine the Non-Identity argument itself. In this paper, I show how the pervasive force and nature of Non-Identity arguments (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Nils Holtug (2001). The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.score: 18.0
    It is suggested that the Harm Principle can be viewedas the moral basis on which genetically modified (GM) food iscurrently regulated. It is then argued (a) that the concept ofharm cannot be specified in such a manner as to render the HarmPrinciple a plausible political principle, so this principlecannot be used to justify existing regulation; and (b) that evenif the Harm Principle were a plausible political principle, itcould not be used alone in the regulation of GM food, since (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Kerry Gutridge (2010). Safer Self-Injury or Assisted Self-Harm? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (1):79-92.score: 18.0
    Psychiatric patients may try (or express a desire) to injure themselves in hospital in order to cope with overwhelming emotional pain. Some health care practitioners and patients propose allowing a controlled amount of self-injury to occur in inpatient facilities, so as to prevent escalation of distress. Is this approach an example of professional assistance with harm? Or, is the approach more likely to minimise harm, by ensuring safer self-injury? In this article, I argue that health care practitioners who (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Friderik Klampfer (2004). Moral Responsibility for Unprevented Harm. Acta Analytica 19 (33):119-161.score: 18.0
    That we are morally responsible for what we do willingly and knowingly is a commonplace. That our moral responsibility extends as far as to cover at least the intended consequences of our voluntary actions and perhaps also the ones we did not intend, but could or did foresee, is equally beyond dispute. But what about omissions? Are we, or can we be, (equally) morally responsible for the harm that has occured because we did not prevent it, even though we (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Jeri Lynn Jones & Karen L. Middleton (2007). Ethical Decision-Making by Consumers: The Roles of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 70 (3):247 - 264.score: 18.0
    The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of perceptions of product harm and consumer vulnerability on ethical evaluations of target marketing strategies. We first established whether subjects are able to accurately judge the harmfulness of a product through labeling alone, and whether they could differentiate consumers who were more or less vulnerable. The results suggest that without the presence of a prime, subjects who depended on implicit memory or guess were able to detect differences in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Floris Tomasini (2009). Is Post-Mortem Harm Possible? Understanding Death Harm and Grief. Bioethics 23 (8):441-449.score: 18.0
    The purpose of this article is not to affirm or deny particular philosophical positions, but to explore the limits of intelligibility about what post-mortem harm means, especially in the light of improper post-mortem procedures at Bristol and Alder Hey hospitals in the late 1990s. The parental claims of post-mortem harm to dead children at Alder Hey Hospital are reviewed from five different philosophical perspectives, eventually settling on a crucial difference of perspective about how we understand harm to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Justin Klocksiem (2012). A Defense of the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):285 – 300.score: 18.0
    Although the counterfactual comparative account of harm, according to which someone is harmed when things go worse for her than they otherwise would have, is intuitively plausible, it has recently come under attack. There are five serious objections in the literature: some philosophers argue that the counterfactual account makes it hard to see how we could harm someone in the course of benefitting that person; others argue that Parfit’s non-identity problem is particularly problematic; another objection claims that the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Richard L. Lippke (2003). Desert, Harm Reduction, and Moral Education: The Case for a Tortfeasor Penalty. Res Publica 9 (2):127-147.score: 18.0
    Those found liable for negligently injuring others are required to compensate them, but current practices permit most tort feasors to spread the costs of their liability burdens through the purchase of insurance. Those found guilty of criminal offences, however, are not allowed to shift the burdens of their sentences onto others. Yet the reasons for not allowing criminal offenders to shift such burdens – harm reduction, retribution, and moral education – also appear to retain some force in relation to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Stephen Hetherington (2013). Where is the Harm in Dying Prematurely? An Epicurean Answer. Journal of Ethics 17 (1-2):79-97.score: 18.0
    Philosophers have said less than is needed about the nature of premature death, and about the badness or otherwise of that death for the one who dies. In this paper, premature death’s nature is clarified in Epicurean terms. And an accompanying argument denies that we need to think of such a death as bad in itself for the one who dies. Premature death’s nature is conceived of as a death that arrives before ataraxia does. (Ataraxia’s nature is also clarified. It (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Stephan Blatti (forthcoming). Mortal Harm and the Antemortem Experience of Death. Journal of Medical Ethics.score: 18.0
    In his recent book, Death, Posthumous Harm, and Bioethics (Routeledge 2012), James Stacey Taylor challenges two ideas whose provenance may be traced all the way back to Aristotle. The first of these is the thought that death (typically) harms the one who dies (mortal harm thesis). The second is the idea that one can be harmed (and wronged) by events that occur after one’s death (posthumous harm thesis). Taylor devotes two-thirds of his recent book to arguing against (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. C. Cullinan, Dennis Bline, Robert Farrar & Dana Lowe (2008). Organization-Harm Vs. Organization-Gain Ethical Issues: An Exploratory Examination of the Effects of Organizational Commitment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 80 (2):225 - 235.score: 18.0
    The existing literature on the relationship between organizational commitment and ethical decision making suggests that ethical decision makers with higher organizational commitment are less likely to engage in ethically questionable behaviors. The ethical behaviors previously studied in an organizational commitment context have been organization-harm issues in which the organization was harmed and the individual benefited (e.g., overstating an expense report). There is another class of ethical issues in an organizational context, however. These other issues, termed organization-gain issues, focus on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. André Krom (2011). The Harm Principle as a Mid-Level Principle? Three Problems From the Context of Infectious Disease Control. Bioethics 25 (8):437-444.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. William Kline (2010). Do No Harm: A Defense of Markets in Healthcare. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 22 (3):241-251.score: 18.0
    This paper argues that the rules that constitute a market protect autonomy and increase welfare in healthcare. Markets do the former through protecting rights to self-ownership and a cluster of rights that protect its exercise. Markets protect welfare by organizing and protecting trades. In contrast, prohibition destroys legitimate markets, giving rise to so-called black markets that harm both the autonomy and well-being of agents. For example, a fee-for-service medical system is a highly developed and specialized market. It is individuals (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Andreas von Hirsch (2014). Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):245-256.score: 18.0
    Contemporary theories of criminalisation address, with varying emphasis, themes concerning the harmfulness and the wrongfulness of the conduct. In his article for the present issue, Antony Duff relies chiefly on notions of wrongfulness as the basis for his proposed criminalisation doctrines; whereas in their 2011 volume on criminalisation, Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch invoke both wrongfulness and harmfulness as prerequisites for prohibiting conduct. The present article assesses the comparative merits of these approaches, and argues in favour of the latter, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Christopher Morgan-Knapp & Charles Goodman (forthcoming). Consequentialism, Climate Harm and Individual Obligations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-14.score: 18.0
    Does the decision to relax by taking a drive rather than by taking a walk cause harm? In particular, do the additional carbon emissions caused by such a decision make anyone worse off? Recently several philosophers have argued that the answer is no, and on this basis have gone on to claim that act-consequentialism cannot provide a moral reason for individuals to voluntarily reduce their emissions. The reasoning typically consists of two steps. First, the effect of individual emissions on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Lisa Campo-Engelstein (2014). Paternal-Fetal Harm and Men's Moral Duty to Use Contraception: Applying the Principles of Nonmaleficence and Beneficence to Men's Reproductive Responsibility. Medicine Studies 4 (1-4):1-13.score: 18.0
    Discussions of reproductive responsibility generally draw heavily upon the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence. However, these principles are typically only applied to women due to the incorrect belief that only women can cause fetal harm. The cultural perception that women are likely to cause fetal and child harm is reflected in numerous social norms, policies, and laws. Conversely, there is little public discussion of men and fetal and child harm, which implies that men do not (or cannot) (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Robert J. MacCoun (2013). Moral Outrage and Opposition to Harm Reduction. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):83-98.score: 18.0
    Three public opinion studies examined public attitudes toward prevalence reduction (PR; reducing the number of people engaging in an activity) and harm reduction (HR; reducing the harm associated with an activity) across a wide variety of domains. Studies 1 and 2 were telephone surveys of California adults’ views on PR and HR strategies for a wide range of risk domains (heroin, alcoholism, tobacco, skateboarding, teen sex, illegal immigration, air pollution, and fast food). “Moral outrage” items (immoral, disgusting, irresponsible, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kai Ambos (2013). The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-29.score: 18.0
    Current International Criminal Law (‘ICL’) suffers from at least four theoretical shortcomings regarding its ‘concept and meaning’, ‘ius puniendi’ (supranational right to punish), ‘overall function’ and ‘purposes of punishment’ (For clarification of these basic questions, see Ambos in Oxf J Legal Stud 33:293–315, 2013b. Of course, there are many possible conceptualisations of the basic questions facing any theory of criminal law see, for example, Murphy in Columbia Law Rev 87:509–532, 1987. Yet, taking the perspective of ICL, I would argue that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2014). Being Worse Off: But in Comparison with What? On the Baseline Problem of Harm and the Harm Principle. Res Publica 20 (2):199-214.score: 18.0
    Several liberal philosophers and penal theorists have argued that the state has a reason to prohibit acts that harm individuals. But what is harm? According to one specification of harm, a person P is harmed by an act (or an event) a iff, as a result of a, P is made worse off in terms of well-being. One central question here involves the baseline against which we assess whether someone is ‘worse off’. In other words, when a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. John Stanton-Ife (forthcoming). What is the Harm Principle For? Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-25.score: 18.0
    In their excellent monograph, Crimes, Harms and Wrongs, Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch argue for an account of legitimate criminalisation based on wrongfulness, the Harm Principle and the Offence Principle, while they reject an independent anti-paternalism principle. To put it at its simplest my aim in the present paper is to examine the relationship between ‘the harms’ and ‘the wrongs’ of the authors’ title. I begin by comparing the authors’ version of the Harm and Offence Principle with (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Gerhard Seher (2014). Comment on Andreas von Hirsch: The Roles of Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):257-264.score: 18.0
    Whereas liberals tend to emphasize harm as the decisive criterion for legitimizing criminalisation, moralists take a qualified notion of wrongfulness as sufficient even when no harm is at hand. This comment takes up Andreas von Hirsch’s “dual element approach” requiring both harm and wrongfulness as necessary conditions for criminalisation and argues that Joel Feinberg’s account of harming as violation of moral rights is perfectly compatible with it. Subsequently, two issues from the liberalism-moralism debate on criminalisation are examined: (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Margaret Lindorff, Elizabeth Prior Jonson & Linda McGuire (2012). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Controversial Industry Sectors: The Social Value of Harm Minimisation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 110 (4):457-467.score: 18.0
    This paper examines how it is possible for firms in controversial sectors, which are often marked by social taboos and moral debates, to act in socially responsible ways, and whether a firm can be socially responsible if it produces products harmful to society or individuals. It contends that a utilitarian justification can be used to support the legal and regulated provision of goods and services in these areas, and the regulated and legal provision of these areas produces less harm (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Franck L. B. Meijboom, Nina Cohen, Elsbeth N. Stassen & Frans W. A. Brom (2009). Beyond the Prevention of Harm: Animal Disease Policy as a Moral Question. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):559-571.score: 18.0
    European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a “harm to other” principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers—e.g., by culling their animals—is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Margaret Lindorff, Elizabeth Prior Jonson & Linda McGuire (2012). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility in Controversial Industry Sectors: The Social Value of Harm Minimisation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 110 (4):457 - 467.score: 18.0
    This paper examines how it is possible for firms in controversial sectors, which are often marked by social taboos and moral debates, to act in socially responsible ways, and whether a firm can be socially responsible if it produces products harmful to society or individuals. It contends that a utilitarian justification can be used to support the legal and regulated provision of goods and services in these areas, and the regulated and legal provision of these areas produces less harm (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Christopher Mayes (2014). The Harm of Bioethics: A Critique of Singer and Callahan on Obesity. Bioethics 28 (6).score: 18.0
    Debate concerning the social impact of obesity has been ongoing since at least the 1980s. Bioethicists, however, have been relatively silent. If obesity is addressed it tends to be in the context of resource allocation or clinical procedures such as bariatric surgery. However, prominent bioethicists Peter Singer and Dan Callahan have recently entered the obesity debate to argue that obesity is not simply a clinical or personal issue but an ethical issue with social and political consequences. This article critically examines (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Mikel Burley (2010). Winch and Wittgenstein on Moral Harm and Absolute Safety. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67 (2):81 - 94.score: 16.0
    This paper examines Wittgenstein's conception of absolute safety in the light of two potential problems exposed by Winch. These are that, firstly: even if someone's life has been virtuous so far, the contingency of its remaining so until death vitiates the claim that the virtuous person cannot be harmed; and secondly: when voiced from a first-person standpoint, the claim to be absolutely safe due to one's virtuousness appears hubristic and self-undermining. I argue that Wittgenstein's mystical conception of safety, unlike some (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. David C. Bauman (2011). Evaluating Ethical Approaches to Crisis Leadership: Insights From Unintentional Harm Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 98 (2):281 - 295.score: 16.0
    Leading a corporation through a crisis requires rational decision making guided by an ethical approach (Snyder et al., Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 2006, 371). Three such approaches are virtue ethics (Seeger and Ulmer, Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 2001, 369), an ethic of justice, and an ethic of care (Simóla, Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 2003, 351). In this article, I consider the effectiveness of these approaches for leading a corporation after a crisis. The standard I use is drawn (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Nicola Jane Williams (2013). Possible Persons and the Problem of Prenatal Harm. Journal of Ethics 17 (4):355-385.score: 16.0
    When attempting to determine which of our acts affect future generations and which affect the identities of those who make up such generations, accounts of personal identity that privilege psychological features and person affecting accounts of morality, whilst highly useful when discussing the rights and wrongs of acts relating to extant persons, seem to come up short. On such approaches it is often held that the intuition that future persons can be harmed by decisions made prior to their existence is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Jonny Anomaly (2009). Harm to Others: The Social Cost of Antibiotics in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (5):423-435.score: 15.0
    See "What's Wrong with Factory Farming?" (2014) for an updated treatment of these issues.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Mulnix (2009). Harm, Rights, and Liberty: Towards a Non-Normative Reading of Mill's Liberty Principle. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):196-217.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Sue Cornforth (2013). Doing No Harm in a Changing Climate: Professional Education, and the Problematic 'Psy' Subject. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (10):1054-1066.score: 15.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000