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 liberty‐restrictions  infectious disease control  convergence  mid‐level principles  harm principle
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01926.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,370
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Harm Principle.Nils Holtug - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food.Nils Holtug - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.
Have We Solved the Non-Identity Problem?Fiona Woollard - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):677-690.
The Moral Foundation of the Precautionary Principle.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2002 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):39-55.
Mill on Duty and Liberty.John Kilcullen - 1981 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (3):290 – 300.
The Limits of the Harm Principle.Hamish Stewart - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):17-35.
J. S. Mill and the American Law of Quarantine.Wendy E. Parmet - 2008 - Public Health Ethics 1 (3):210-222.
Harm and the Volenti Principle.Gerald Dworkin - 2012 - Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1):309-321.
Mill on Liberty.Ted Honderich - 1967 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 10 (1-4):292 – 297.
Rights Against Polluters.Andrew Kernohan - 1995 - Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.
The Right, the Good and the Jurisprude.Wojciech Sadurski - 1988 - Law and Philosophy 7 (1):35 - 66.
Added to PP index
2011-09-20

Total downloads
22 ( #233,713 of 2,193,765 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #290,980 of 2,193,765 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature