Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 809–823 | Cite as

Harming by Failing to Benefit

  • Neil FeitEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I consider the problem of omission for the counterfactual comparative account of harm. A given event harms a person, on this account, when it makes her worse off than she would have been if it had not occurred. The problem arises because cases in which one person merely fails to benefit another intuitively seem harmless. The account, however, seems to imply that when one person fails to benefit another, the first thereby harms the second, since the second person would have been better off if the first had benefited her. I argue that the cases of failing to benefit at issue are in fact cases of harming. They are cases of preventive harm. I also argue that we can explain away the intuition that no harm occurs in these cases, and that the relevant implication of the counterfactual comparative account is consistent with a variety of plausible views about the moral significance of harm.

Keywords

Harm Comparative harm Omission Extrinsic value Counterfactuals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank participants at the workshop Harm: the concept and its relevance, Uppsala University, and also the PANTC Conference on Bioethics and the Philosophy of Medicine, University at Buffalo, in the summer of 2016. I am grateful to the following people for their helpful comments and suggestions: David Boonin, Ben Bradley, Ben Bramble, Susanne Burri, Erik Carlson, Andrew Cullison, James Delaney, Molly Gardner, Matthew Hanser, David Hershenov, Magnus Jedenheim-Edling, Jens Johansson, Stephen Kershnar, Justin Klocksiem, Duncan Purves, Katharina Berndt Rasmussen, Phil Reed, Simon Rosenqvist, and Dale Tuggy.

References

  1. Boonin D (2014) The Non-Identity Problem and the Ethics of Future People. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley B (2009) Well-Being and Death. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley B (2012) Doing away with harm. Philos Phenomenol Res 85:390–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley B (2015) Well-Being. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke R (2010) Intentional omissions. Noûs 44:158–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Draper K (1999) Disappointment, sadness, and death. Philos Rev 108:387–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feit N (2015) Plural harm. Philos Phenomenol Res 90:361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanna N (2016) Harm: omission, preemption, freedom. Philos Phenomenol Res 93:251–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanser M (2008) The metaphysics of harm. Philos Phenomenol Res 77:421–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harman E (2009) Harming as causing harm. In: Roberts M, Wasserman D (eds) Harming Future Persons. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kagan S (1989) The Limits of Morality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Klocksiem J (2012) A defense of the counterfactual comparative account of harm. Am Philos Q 49:285–300Google Scholar
  13. Moore M (2009) Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sartorio C (2005) A new asymmetry between actions and omissions. Noûs 39:460–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sartorio C (2009) Omissions and causalism. Noûs 43:513–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sartorio C (2012) Two wrongs do not make a right: responsibility and overdetermination. Legal Theory 18:473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomson J (1991) Self-Defense. Philos Public Aff 20:283–310Google Scholar
  18. Zimmerman M (1981) Taking some of the mystery out of omissions. South J Philos 19:541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe State University of New York at FredoniaFredoniaUSA

Personalised recommendations