On the Harm of Imposing Risk of Harm

Abstract

What is wrong with imposing pure risks, that is, risks that don’t materialize into harm? According to a popular response, imposing pure risks is pro tanto wrong, when and because risk itself is harmful. Call this the Harm View. Defenders of this view make one of the following two claims. On the Constitutive Claim, pure risk imposition is pro tanto wrong when and because risk constitutes diminishing one’s well-being viz. preference-frustration or setting-back their legitimate interest in autonomy. On the Contingent Claim, pure risk imposition is pro tanto wrong when and because risk has harmful consequences for the risk-bearers, such as psychological distress. This paper argues that the Harm View is plausible only on the Contingent Claim, but fails on the Constitutive Claim. In discussing the latter, I argue that both the preference and autonomy account fail to show that risk itself is constitutively harmful and thereby wrong. In discussing the former, I argue that risk itself is contingently harmful and thereby wrong but only in a narrow range of cases. I conclude that while the Harm View can sometimes explain the wrong of imposing risk when (and because) risk itself is contingently harmful, it is unsuccessful as a general, exhaustive account of what makes pure imposition wrong.

Offsetting Present Risks, Preempting Future Harms, and the Ethics of a ‘New Normal’

“…First, there is the ethics of risk more generally (E.g., Hansson, 2003;Hayenhjelm & Wolff, 2012;Maheshwari, 2021). This is the discussion of how we should deal with risks and uncertainty in life, why it is bad to be exposed to risk, what is wrong with imposing risks on others, how much risk is acceptable in life, what safety precautions are ethically required in different parts of life, and so on.…”

Dominating Risk Impositions

“… 12 For criticism of Oberdiek’s account, cf. Parr and Slavny 2019 , Ferretti 2016 , Maheshwari 2021 . …”