Results for 'risk impositions'

983 found
Order:
  1.  64
    Risk Impositions, Genuine Losses, and Reparability as a Moral Constraint.Madeleine Hayenhjelm - 2018 - Ethical Perspectives 25 (3):419-446.
    What kind of moral principle could be sufficiently restrictive to avoid the kind of large-scale risks that have resulted in catastrophe in the past, while at the same time not be so restrictive as to halt desirable progress? Is there such a principle that is not merely a precautionary principle, but one that could be based on firm moral grounds? In this article, I set out to explore a simple idea: might it be the case that reparability could serve as (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  83
    Risk imposition and freedom.Maria P. Ferretti - 2016 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 15 (3):261-279.
    Various authors hold that what is wrong with risk imposition is that being at risk diminishes the opportunities available to an agent. Arguably, even when risk does not result in material or psychological damages, it still represents a setback in terms of some legitimate interests. However, it remains to be specified what those interests are. This article argues that risk imposition represents a diminishment of overall freedom. Freedom will be characterized in empirical terms, as the range (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  3.  54
    Risk Imposition and Liability to Defensive Harm.Helen Frowe - 2022 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 16 (3):511-524.
    According to Jonathan Quong’s _moral status account_ of liability to defensive harm, an agent is liable to defensive harm only when she mistakenly treats others as if their moral status is diminished (for example, as if they lack a right that they in fact possess). Quong argues that, by the lights of the moral status account, a conscientious driver (Driver) who faultlessly threatens to kill Pedestrian is not liable to defensive harm. Quong argues that Driver’s action is evidence-relative permissible, despite (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4. Offsetting and Risk Imposition.Christian Barry & Garrett Cullity - 2022 - Ethics 132 (2):352-381.
    Suppose you perform two actions. The first imposes a risk of harm that, on its own, would be excessive; but the second reduces the risk of harm by a corresponding amount. By pairing the two actions together to form a set of actions that is risk-neutral, can you thereby make your overall course of conduct permissible? This question is theoretically interesting, because the answer is apparently: sometimes Yes, sometimes No. It is also practically important, because it bears (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  5. The Moral Problem of Risk Impositions: A Survey of the Literature.Madeleine Hayenhjelm & Jonathan Wolff - 2012 - European Journal of Philosophy 20 (S1):E1-E142.
    This paper surveys the current philosophical discussion of the ethics of risk imposition, placing it in the context of relevant work in psychology, economics and social theory. The central philosophical problem starts from the observation that it is not practically possible to assign people individual rights not to be exposed to risk, as virtually all activity imposes some risk on others. This is the ‘problem of paralysis’. However, the obvious alternative theory that exposure to risk is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  6.  78
    Dominating Risk Impositions.Kritika Maheshwari & Sven Nyholm - 2022 - The Journal of Ethics 26 (4):613-637.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. Contractualism and risk imposition.James Lenman - 2008 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (1):99-122.
    The article investigates the resources of contractualist moral theory to make sense of the ethics of risk imposition. In some ways, contractualism seems well placed to explain how it can be reasonable to accept exposure to risk of harms whose direct imposition would not be acceptable. However, there are difficulties getting clear about what directness comes to here, especially given the difficulty of adequately motivating traditional views that assign ethical significance to what the agent intends as opposed to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  8. A Right against Risk-Imposition and the Problem of Paralysis.Sune Holm - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):917-930.
    In this paper I examine the prospects for a rights-based approach to the morality of pure risk-imposition. In particular, I discuss a practical challenge to proponents of the thesis that we have a right against being imposed a risk of harm. According to an influential criticism, a right against risk-imposition will rule out all ordinary activities. The paper examines two strategies that rights theorists may follow in response to this “Paralysis Problem”. The first strategy introduces a threshold (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  9. Risk Imposition by Artificial Agents: The Moral Proxy Problem.Johanna Thoma - 2022 - In Silja Voeneky, Philipp Kellmeyer, Oliver Mueller & Wolfram Burgard (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
    Where artificial agents are not liable to be ascribed true moral agency and responsibility in their own right, we can understand them as acting as proxies for human agents, as making decisions on their behalf. What I call the ‘Moral Proxy Problem’ arises because it is often not clear for whom a specific artificial agent is acting as a moral proxy. In particular, we need to decide whether artificial agents should be acting as proxies for low-level agents — e.g. individual (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  90
    Rights Against High-Level Risk Impositions.Fei Song - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):763-778.
    In this article, I argue for a distinct and novel right-based account of risks and I call it the Sophisticated High-risk Thesis. I argue that there is a distinction between rights-infringing risk impositions and no-rights-infringing risk impositions. An action imposing a high risk of harm infringes rights, whereas an act imposing a low risk of harm does not. I also suggest three principles that govern the permissibility of highly risky actions. If a highly (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  11.  53
    Conceptualising morally permissible risk imposition without quantified individual risks.Susanne Burri - 2022 - Synthese 200 (5):1-22.
    We frequently engage in activities that impose a risk of serious harm on innocent others in order to realise trivial benefits for ourselves or third parties. Many moral theories tie the evidence-relative permissibility of engaging in such activities to the size of the risk that an individual agent imposes. I argue that we should move away from such a reliance on quantified individual risks when conceptualising morally permissible risk imposition. Under most circumstances of interest, a conscientious reasoner (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12.  54
    Just Social Risk Imposition and the Demand for Fair Risk Sharing.Yunmeng Cai - 2021 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 19 (3):254-279.
    Existing accounts of social insurance tend to treat social risks as given and ask whether it is justified for the state to deal with these risks for its citizens. They ignore that many common risks are in fact imposed on citizens as a byproduct of the institutional choices of the society, which call for justification in the first place. In this paper, I use the Scanlonian contractualist framework to develop an account of just social risk imposition which implies a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13. The Ethics of Killing in a Pandemic: Unintentional Virus Transmission, Reciprocal Risk Imposition, and Standards of Blame.Jeremy Davis - 2022 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 39 (3):471-486.
    The COVID-19 global pandemic has shone a light on several important ethical questions, ranging from fairness in resource allocation to the ethical justification of government mandates. In addition to these institutional issues, there are also several ethical questions that arise at the interpersonal level. This essay focuses on several of these issues. In particular, I argue that, despite the insistence in public health messaging that avoiding infecting others constitutes ‘saving lives’, virus transmission that results in death constitutes an act of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  72
    Morally Permissible Risk Imposition and Liability to Defensive Harm.Susanne Burri - 2020 - Law and Philosophy 39 (4):381-408.
    This paper examines whether an agent becomes liable to defensive harm by engaging in a morally permissible but foreseeably risk-imposing activity that subsequently threatens objectively unjustified harm. It first clarifies the notion of a foreseeably risk-imposing activity by proposing that an activity should count as foreseeably risk-imposing if an agent may morally permissibly perform it only if she abides by certain duties of care. Those who argue that engaging in such an activity can render an agent liable (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  15. Probability, Normalcy, and the Right against Risk Imposition.Martin Smith - 2024 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 27 (3).
    Many philosophers accept that, as well as having a right that others not harm us, we also have a right that others not subject us to a risk of harm. And yet, when we attempt to spell out precisely what this ‘right against risk imposition’ involves, we encounter a series of notorious puzzles. Existing attempts to deal with these puzzles have tended to focus on the nature of rights – but I propose an approach that focusses instead on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  62
    The Luckless and the Doomed. Contractualism on Justified Risk-Imposition.Sune Holm - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (2):231-244.
    Several authors have argued that contractualism faces a dilemma when it comes to justifying risks generated by socially valuable activities. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether contractualists should adopt an ex post or an ex ante perspective when assessing whether an action or policy is justifiable to each person. In this paper I argue for the modest conclusion that ex post contractualism is a live option notwithstanding recent criticisms raised by proponents of the ex ante (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  17.  63
    Another Shake of the Bag: Stefansson and Willners on Offsetting and Risk Imposition.Christian Barry & Garrett Cullity - forthcoming - Ethics, Policy and Environment.
    There is a difference between acting with a probability of making a difference to who is harmed, and worsening someone’s prospect. This difference is relevant to debates about the ethics of offsetting, since it means that showing that emitting-and-offsetting has the first feature is not a way of showing that it has the second feature. In an earlier paper, we illustrate this difference with an example of a lottery in which you shake the bag from which a ball will be (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  5
    Why it’s Fine to Offset one’s Carbon Emissions by Paying Others to Pollute Less: A Deontological Account of Risk Imposition.Nicolas Côté - forthcoming - Journal of Value Inquiry:1-15.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. Increasing the risk that someone will die without increasing the risk that you will kill them.Thomas Byrne - 2023 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 107 (2):395-412.
    I consider cases where you increase the risk that, e.g., someone will die, without increasing the risk that you will kill them: in particular, cases in which that increasing of risk is accompanied by a decreasing of risk of the same degree such that the risk imposition has been offset. I defend the moral legitimacy of such offsetting, including carbon-offsetting.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20.  60
    Regarding a Risk‐Pooling System of compensation.Fei Song - 2019 - Ratio 32 (2):139-149.
    In this paper, I propose and defend a distinct and novel approach to compensation for risk impositions. I call it the Risk-Pooling System of compensation. This system suggests that when X performs an action that imposes a risk of harm to Y, then X is liable to Y, and is therefore obliged to make an ex ante compensation that is roughly equivalent to the expected cost of potential harm to a social- risk pool. If and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  39
    The problem of imposing risk and the procedural dimension of stakeholder management.Marc A. Cohen - 2019 - Business and Society Review 124 (3):413-427.
    The case "Caprica Energy and Its Choices" concerns a fictionalized energy corporation choosing between three potential drilling sites. According to the published Teaching Note, the case is an exercise in the stakeholder approach to business: it requires balancing profit considerations with potential harm to those who live near those drilling sites. Though unintended, the case raises a further question not addressed in the case or in the Teaching Note: what gives Caprica Energy the right to impose risk on members (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22.  23
    Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework.John Oberdiek - 2014 - Oxford University Press UK.
    We subject others and are ourselves subjected to risk all the time - risk permeates life. Despite the ubiquity of risk and its imposition, philosophers and legal scholars have devoted little of their attention to the difficult questions stimulated by the pervasiveness of risk. When we impose risk upon others, what is it that we are doing? What is risking's moral significance? What moral standards govern the imposition of risk? And how should the law (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  23. On Risk-Based Arguments for Anti-natalism.Erik Magnusson - 2022 - Journal of Value Inquiry 56 (1):101-117.
    In this paper, I explore the prospects for risk-based arguments in favour of anti-natalism, which explain the wrongness of procreation in terms of wrongful risk-imposition on the resultant child. After considering and rejecting two risk-based arguments from the existing literature - David Benatar's and Matti Häyry's - I propose a more promising version that focuses on the lack of appropriate justification for imposing the risks of existence, namely, one that refers to the essential interests of the child (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24. Ex Ante and Ex Post Contractualism: A Synthesis.Jussi Suikkanen - 2019 - The Journal of Ethics 23 (1):77-98.
    According to contractualist theories in ethics, whether an action is wrong is determined by whether it could be justified to others on grounds no one could reasonably reject. Contractualists then think that reasonable rejectability of principles depends on the strength of the personal objections individuals can make to them. There is, however, a deep disagreement between contractualists concerning from which temporal perspective the relevant objections to different principles are to be made. Are they to be made on the basis of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  25.  32
    Mind who’s testing: Turing tests and the post-colonial imposition of their implicit conceptions of intelligence.Fabian Fischbach, Tijs Vandemeulebroucke & Aimee van Wynsberghe - forthcoming - AI and Society:1-12.
    This paper aims to show that dominant conceptions of intelligence used in artificial intelligence (AI) are biased by normative assumptions that originate from the Global North, making it questionable if AI can be uncritically applied elsewhere without risking serious harm to vulnerable people. After the introduction in Sect. 1 we shortly present the history of IQ testing in Sect. 2, focusing on its multiple discriminatory biases. To determine how these biases came into existence, we define intelligence ontologically and underline its (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  35
    Risking Civilian Lives to Avoid Harm to Cultural Heritage?William Bülow - 2020 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 18 (3).
    This paper investigates the circumstances under which it is morally permissible to impose non-negligible risks of serious harm on innocent civilians in order not to endanger tangible cultural heritage during armed conflict. Building on a previous account of the value of cultural heritage, it is argued that tangible cultural heritage is valuable because of how it contributes to valuable and meaningful human lives. Taking this account as the point of departure I examine the claim that commanders should be prepared to (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  63
    Bystanders, risks, and consent.Helen Frowe - 2019 - Bioethics 34 (9):906-911.
    This paper considers the moral status of bystanders affected by medical research trials. Recent proposals advocate a very low threshold of permissible risk imposition upon bystanders that is insensitive to the prospective benefits of the trial, in part because we typically lack bystanders' consent. I argue that the correct threshold of permissible risk will be sensitive to the prospective gains of the trial. I further argue that one does not always need a person's consent to expose her to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28. An Idle and Most False Imposition: Truth-Seeking vs. Status-Seeking and the Failure of Epistemic Vigilance.Joseph Shieber - 2023 - Philosophic Exchange 2023.
    The theory of epistemic vigilance posits that -- to quote the eponymous paper that introduced the theory -- “humans have a suite of cognitive mechanisms for epistemic vigilance, targeted at the risk of being misinformed by others." Despite the widespread acceptance of the theory of epistemic vigilance, however, I argue that the theory is a poor fit with the evidence: while there is good reason to accept that people ARE vigilant, there is also good reason to believe that their (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Risk, Overdiagnosis and Ethical Justifications.Wendy A. Rogers, Vikki A. Entwistle & Stacy M. Carter - 2019 - Health Care Analysis 27 (4):231-248.
    Many healthcare practices expose people to risks of harmful outcomes. However, the major theories of moral philosophy struggle to assess whether, when and why it is ethically justifiable to expose individuals to risks, as opposed to actually harming them. Sven Ove Hansson has proposed an approach to the ethical assessment of risk imposition that encourages attention to factors including questions of justice in the distribution of advantage and risk, people’s acceptance or otherwise of risks, and the scope individuals (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  30. Risk, Responsibility, and Procreative Asymmetries.Rivka Weinberg - 2021 - In Stephen M. Gardiner (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Intergenerational Ethics. Oxford University Press.
    The author argues for a theory of responsibility for outcomes of imposed risk, based on whether it was permissible to impose the risk. When one tries to apply this persuasive model of responsibility for outcomes of risk imposition to procreation, which is a risk imposing act, one finds that it doesn’t match one’s intuitions about responsibility for outcomes of procreative risk. This mismatch exposes a justificatory gap for procreativity, namely, that procreation cannot avail itself of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. Rights, explanation, and risks.David McCarthy - 1997 - Ethics 107 (2):205-225.
    Theories of rights seem well equipped to explain widely accepted claims about the morality of harming. But can they explain popular claims about the morality of imposing risks of harm? Many think not. But a plausible theory of rights can explain those claims if it says we have the right that others not impose risks of harm upon us. That is a good reason to believe we have that right. There are many objections to the claim that we have that (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  32. Risk and Blameworthiness by Degree.Adriana Placani & Stearns Broadhead - 2022 - Journal of Value Inquiry 56 (4):663-677.
    This work shows that two problems—the reference class and the mental state of the agent—undermine the plausibility of the ‘blameworthiness tracks risk thesis’ (BTRT), which states, prima facie, an agent is more blameworthy for imposing a greater rather than smaller risk. The article first outlines core concepts. It then shows how the two problems undermine BTRT; namely, (1) no blame attribution based on risk imposition is unequivocal; (2) when the materialization of risk is subject to chance, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33.  54
    Risk, Precaution, Responsibility, and Equal Concern.Alexia Herwig & Marta Simoncini - 2017 - Ratio Juris 30 (3):259-272.
    Systemic risks are risks produced through interconnected non-wrongful actions of individuals, in the sense that an individual's action is a negligible cause of the risk. Due to scale effects of interaction, their consequences can be serious but they are also difficult to predict and assess via a risk assessment. Since we can have good reason to engage in the interconnected activities giving rise to systemic risk, we incur a concurrent collective responsibility to ensure that the risks are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34. Standards of Risk in War and Civil Life.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Florian Demont-Biaggi (ed.), The Nature of Peace and the Morality of Armed Conflict. Cham: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Though the duties of care owed toward innocents in war and in civil life are at the bottom univocally determined by the same ethical principles, Bazargan-Forward argues that those very principles will yield in these two contexts different “in-practice” duties. Furthermore, the duty of care we owe toward our own innocents is less stringent than the duty of care we owe toward foreign innocents in war. This is because risks associated with civil life but not war (a) often increase the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  38
    Risk, Calamity and Apology.Marko Ahteensuu - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (2):449-463.
    Risk decisions often appear unsatisfactory after a calamity has taken place. This holds even when they are products of systematic risk analysis. Yet, if relevant considerations available to be known pre-accident were adequately taken into account and safety measures implemented accordingly, nobody seems morally blameworthy. In this paper, I advance a two-way argument. Firstly, I show how analysis of post-accident apologizing sheds new light on vexed tensions in ethical assessment of risk impositions. This amounts to exposing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Do We Impose Undue Risk When We Emit and Offset? A Reply to Stefansson.Christian Barry & Garrett Cullity - 2022 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 25 (3):242-248.
    ABSTRACT We have previously argued that there are forms of greenhouse gas offsetting for which, when one emits and offsets, one imposes no risk. Orri Stefansson objects that our argument fails to distinguish properly between the people who stand to be harmed by one’s emissions and the people who stand to be benefited by one’s offsetting. We reply by emphasizing the difference between acting with a probability of making a difference to the distribution of harm and acting in a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  37. Chance, consent, and COVID-19.Ryan Doody - 2023 - In Evandro Barbosa (ed.), Moral Challenges in a Pandemic Age. Routledge. pp. 204-224.
    Are mandatory lockdown measures, which place restrictions on one’s freedom to move and assemble, justifiable? Offhand, such measures appear to compromise important rights to secure goals of public health. Proponents of such measures think the trade-off is worth it; opponents think it isn’t. However, one might think that casting the debate in these terms concedes too much to the opponents. Mandatory lockdown measures don’t infringe important rights because no one has a right to impose a risk of grievous harm (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  7
    Risk.John Oberdiek - 1996 - In Dennis M. Patterson (ed.), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell. pp. 578–589.
    This chapter contains sections titled: The Nature of Risk The Moral Significance of Risk.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. On the Harm of Imposing Risk of Harm.Kritika Maheshwari - 2021 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24 (4):965-980.
    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. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  40. Moral Responsibility for Systemic Financial Risk.Jakob Moggia - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics 169 (3):461-473.
    This paper argues that some of the major theories in current business ethics fail to provide an adequate account of moral responsibility for the creation of systemic financial risk. Using the trading of credit default swaps (CDS) during the 2008 financial crisis as a case study, I will formulate three challenges that these theories must address: the problem of risk imposition, the problem of unstructured collective harm and the problem of limited knowledge. These challenges will be used to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41. Can a risk of harm itself be a harm?Thomas Rowe - 2022 - Analysis 81 (4):694-701.
    Many activities impose risks of harm on other people. One such class of risks are those that individuals culpably impose on others, such as the risk arising from reckless driving. Do such risks in themselves constitute a harm, over and above any harm that actually eventuates? This paper considers three recent views that each answer in the affirmative. I argue that each fails to overcome what I call the ‘interference objection’. The risk of harm itself, whether taken as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  42.  23
    Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? The Ethics of Imposing Risk in Public Health.Diego S. Silva & Maxwell J. Smith - 2023 - Asian Bioethics Review 15 (1):19-35.
    Efforts to improve public health, both in the context of infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases, will often consist of measures that confer risk on some persons to bring about benefits to those same people or others. Still, it is unclear what exactly justifies implementing such measures that impose risk on some people and not others in the context of public health. Herein, we build on existing autonomy-based accounts of ethical risk imposition by arguing that considerations of imposing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  25
    Technology, individual rights and the ethical evaluation of risk.Lanre-Abass Bolatito Asiata - 2010 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 8 (4):308-322.
    PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the risk arising from technological devices, such as closed circuit television and nuclear power plants and the consequent effect on the rights to privacy and security of individuals.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents critical and conceptual analyses of CCTV, nuclear power plants and the rights of individuals. It also analyses how communitarianism and liberal individualism would respond to right‐infringements and risk‐imposition. It draws on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties to explain the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. When the Risk of Harm Harms.Adriana Placani - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (1):77-100.
    This essay answers two questions that continue to drive debate in moral and legal philosophy; namely, ‘Is a risk of harm a wrong?’ and ‘Is a risk of harm a harm?’. The essay’s central claim is that to risk harm can be both to wrong and to harm. This stands in contrast to the respective positions of Heidi Hurd and Stephen Perry, whose views represent prominent extremes in this debate about risks. The essay shows that there is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  45. Rights, restitution, and risk: essays, in moral theory.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1986 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Edited by William Parent.
    Moral theory should be simple: the moral theorist attends to ordinary human action to explain what makes some acts right and others wrong, and we need no microscope to observe a human act. Yet no moral theory that is simple captures all of the morally relevant facts. In a set of vivid examples, stories, and cases Judith Thomson shows just how wide an array of moral considerations bears on all but the simplest of problems. She is a philosophical analyst of (...)
  46. The moral significance of risking.John Oberdiek - 2012 - Legal Theory 18 (3):339-356.
    What makes careless conduct careless is easily one of the deepest and most contested questions in negligence law, tort theory, and moral theory. Answering it involves determining the conditions that make the imposition of risk unjustifiable, wrong, or impermissible. Yet there is a still deeper as well as overlooked and undertheorized question: Why does subjecting others to risk of harm call for justification in the first place? That risk can be impermissibly imposed upon otherspresupposes that imposing (...) is the kind of thing that can be impermissible. Unless imposing risk can be impermissible after all, unjustified risking is literally impossible. In this discussion, I explore what I call the moral significance of risking, arguing that the moral significance of risking resides in a certain kind of nonmaterial autonomy interest that is implicated whenever one imposes risk of harm on another. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  47.  9
    The Biodiversity Crisis, Biodiversity Hotspots, and Our Obligations with Respect to Them.Margaret Moore - 2023 - Social Philosophy and Policy 40 (2):482-502.
    This essay argues that we have a duty to protect biodiversity hotspots, rooted in an argument about the wrongful imposition of risk and intergenerational justice. State authority over territory and resources is not unlimited; the state has a duty to protect these areas. The essay argues that although biodiversity loss is a global problem, it can be tackled at the domestic level through clear rules. The argument thus challenges the usual view of state sovereignty, which holds that authority over (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  43
    On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research.Joanna Różyńska - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (7):451-461.
    Reigning regulatory frameworks for biomedical research impose on researchers and research ethics committees an obligation to protect research participants from risks that are unnecessary, disproportionate to potential research benefits, and non-minimized. Where the research has no potential to produce results of direct benefit to the subjects and the subjects are unable to give consent, these requirements are strengthened by an additional condition, that risks should not exceed a certain minimal threshold. In this article, I address the question of whether there (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  49. Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?Julian Savulescu - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (2):78-85.
    Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  50. Responding to Covid-19 in India: Reducing Risk or Increasing Domination?Kritika Maheshwari - 2022 - In Jens O. Zinn & Patrick Brown (eds.), Covid-19 and the Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 29-52.
    During times of emergency like the pandemic itself, governments are often seen as exercising “exceptional power”. Given the state of growing urgency in responding to the pandemic, there is a worry that governments may resort to exercising their exceptional power arbitrarily—either willingly, unintentionally or perhaps even negligently. When power is exercised by states or even by non-state actors arbitrarily over a person or group, that is, at their own will in the absence of appropriate institutional checks and balances, republican theorists (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 983