Journal of Moral Philosophy 5 (1):50-76 (2008)
Of great importance to many non-consequentialists is a claimed moral difference between doing and allowing harm. I argue that non-consequentialism is best understood, however, as consisting in three morally distinct categories where commentators typically identify two: standard doings of harm, standard allowings of harm, and denials of resources. Furthermore, the moral distinctness of denials of resources is independent of whether denials are doings or allowings of harm, I argue. I argue by way of matched examples, as well as by way of two widely accepted features of non-consequentialism: stringent rights of persons, and the susceptibility of resources to distribution within political society
|Keywords||KILLING AND LETTING DIE DOING AND ALLOWING WITHDRAWAL OF AID PROPERTY RIGHTS|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing I: Analysis of the Doing/Allowing Distinction.Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (7):448-458.
The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing II: The Moral Relevance of the Doing/Allowing Distinction.Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (7):459-469.
Similar books and articles
The Moral Status of Enabling Harm.Samuel C. Rickless - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.
Safer Self-Injury or Assisted Self-Harm?Kerry Gutridge - 2010 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (1):79-92.
Why Self-Ownership is Prescriptively Impotent.Evan Fox-Decent - 1998 - Journal of Value Inquiry 32 (4):489-506.
Are Trade Subsidies and Tariffs Killing the Global Poor?Christian Barry & Gerhard Øverland - 2012 - Social Research (4):865-896.
Have We Solved the Non-Identity Problem?Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):677-690.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads63 ( #83,174 of 2,168,640 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,283 of 2,168,640 )
How can I increase my downloads?