Harm: The counterfactual comparative account, the omission and pre-emption problems, and well-being

Villiers-Botha, Tanya de

doi:10.1080/02580136.2017.1393246

South African Journal of Philosophy

2018

DOI: 10.1080/02580136.2017.1393246

|View full text |Cite

Harm: The counterfactual comparative account, the omission and pre-emption problems, and well-being

Tanya de Villiers-Botha

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 7 Bradley (2012, p. 387). See also de Villiers-Botha (2018, p. 3), Hanna (2016, p. 4), Klocksiem (2012, pp. 286–87), Purves (2019, p. 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm, Failing to Benefit, and the Counterfactual Comparative Account

Klocksiem

2022

Utilitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature about harm, the counterfactual comparative account has emerged as a main contender. According to it, an event constitutes a harm for someone iff the person is worse off than they would otherwise have been as a result. But the counterfactual comparative account faces significant challenges, one of the most serious of which stems from examples involving non-harmful omitted actions or non-occurring events, which it tends to misclassify as harms: for example, Robin is worse off when Batman does not give him a new set of golf clubs, but Batman has not harmed him. In this article, I will clearly state the counterfactual comparative account; state and explain this objection to the account; canvass several unsatisfactory responses; and attempt to show how the account can overcome the objection. This solution involves distinguishing between principles concerning the existence of harm and principles concerning attributions of responsibility for harm.

show abstract

“… 7 Bradley (2012, p. 387). See also de Villiers-Botha (2018, p. 3), Hanna (2016, p. 4), Klocksiem (2012, pp. 286–87), Purves (2019, p. 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm, Failing to Benefit, and the Counterfactual Comparative Account

Klocksiem

2022

Utilitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Harm: The counterfactual comparative account, the omission and pre-emption problems, and well-being

Cited by 1 publication

References 19 publications

Harm, Failing to Benefit, and the Counterfactual Comparative Account

Harm, Failing to Benefit, and the Counterfactual Comparative Account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About