Reply to Klocksiem on the Counterfactual Comparative Account of Harm
In a recent article in this journal, I claimed that the widely held counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA) violates two very plausible principles about harm and prudential reasons. Justin Klocksiem argues, in a reply, that CCA is in fact compatible with these principles. In this rejoinder,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
[2020]
|
| In: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2020, Volume: 23, Issue: 2, Pages: 407-413 |
| RelBib Classification: | VA Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Benefit
B Counterfactual comparative account B Harm B Reason for action |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Summary: | In a recent article in this journal, I claimed that the widely held counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA) violates two very plausible principles about harm and prudential reasons. Justin Klocksiem argues, in a reply, that CCA is in fact compatible with these principles. In this rejoinder, I shall try to show that Klocksiem’s defense of CCA fails. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-020-10071-6 |
