Harm

Rabenberg, Michael

doi:10.26556/jesp.v8i3.84

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The question of what harm is ipso facto has been explored in the philosophical literature since Mill's employment of the term, 15 most notably in Joel Feinberg's four-part series The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. 16 This area of work has been fuelled, in part, by Mill's failure to specify what he means by harm.…”

Section: Part 1: Current Attitudes To the Harm Component Of Gbh In Enmentioning

confidence: 99%

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

Gibson

2020

Medical Law International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sufferers of body integrity identity disorder (BIID) experience a severe, non-delusional mismatch between their physical body and their internalised bodily image. For some, healthy limb amputation is the only alleviation for their significant suffering. Those who achieved an amputation, either self-inflicted or via surgery, often describe the procedure as resulting in relief. However, in England, surgeons who provide ‘elective amputations’ could face prosecution for causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Whether such a therapeutic intervention should be classified as GBH depends on the presence of harm, as, without harm, it is hard to argue that GBH has occurred. However, there is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes harm. Such a definitional absence then begs the question, what is harm? It is this question which this article addresses, using the provision of healthy limb amputation in cases of BIID as an example. Drawing on metaphysics, this article will seek to clarify three separate contemporary models of harm: the counter-temporal, the counterfactual, and the non-comparative. Each model will be applied to the scenario of a surgeon carrying out a BIID-induced, therapeutic, healthy limb amputation, and in each, how harm may, or may not, be understood to have been caused will be explored. It concludes that an unexamined conception of harm is ill-equipped for employment in suspected cases of GBH when it is unclear whether harm has been caused and that a better-informed understanding of harm is required in cases where there is potential disagreement, be that in instances of BIID or a myriad of other borderline scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Part 1: Current Attitudes To the Harm Component Of Gbh In Enmentioning

confidence: 99%

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

Gibson

2020

Medical Law International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adopting a view like this may enable us to accommodate the intuition that animals like Annie are harmed by slaughter, though as Michael Rabenberg points out, they may not possess a will in Shiffrin's sense. 28 There may be other promising nondeprivationist accounts of the harm of death.…”

Section: Paths Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Does Slaughter Harm Humanely Raised Animals?¹

Solis

2020

J Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some believe that it is immoral to harm animals, but it is not immoral to kill humanely raised domesticated animals. Implicit in this is the assumption that it is possible to raise and slaughter animals without harming them significantly. In recent years, a number of philosophers -DeGrazia, Harman, Bradley, and othershave claimed that slaughter harms an animal in proportion to the amount of valuable future life that an animal loses in dying, which seems to challenge this assumption. But a question remains: how much are domesticated animals, particularly humanely raised ones, harmed by their slaughter? Here, I take up this question. My answer may be surprising: in ordinary circumstances, slaughter hardly deprives humanely raised animals of any good life, and so is not very harmful to them. This result may strengthen the case for humane slaughteror it may give us reason to revise our understanding of the harmfulness of death.

show abstract

“…Among others, Molly Gardner (forthcoming: 9), Matthew Hanser (: 434–7), Frances Kamm (: 504), Michael Rabenberg (: 11), and Seana Shiffrin (: 367–8) agree that CCA gets things wrong in preemption cases . I disagree.…”

Section: Preemptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harm: Omission, Preemption, Freedom

Hanna

2015

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harm

Abstract: In recent years, philosophers have proposed a variety of accounts of the nature of harm. In this paper, I consider several of these accounts and argue that they are unsuccessful. I then make a modest case for a different view.

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

How Much Does Slaughter Harm Humanely Raised Animals?¹

Harm: Omission, Preemption, Freedom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Harm

Abstract: In recent years, philosophers have proposed a variety of accounts of the nature of harm. In this paper, I consider several of these accounts and argue that they are unsuccessful. I then make a modest case for a different view.

Cited by 21 publications

References 11 publications

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

No harm, no foul? Body integrity identity disorder and the metaphysics of grievous bodily harm

How Much Does Slaughter Harm Humanely Raised Animals?1

Harm: Omission, Preemption, Freedom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

How Much Does Slaughter Harm Humanely Raised Animals?¹