The harm principle as a mid-level principle? Three problems from the context of infectious disease control

Bioethics 25 (8):437-444 (2011)
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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,422
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
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
Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
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 (2010). The Limits of the Harm Principle. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):17-35.
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.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

20 ( #232,748 of 1,924,993 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #418,001 of 1,924,993 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.