A rights-based perspective on permissible harm

Abstract

This thesis takes up a rights-based perspective to discuss a number of issues related to the problem of permissible harm. It appeals to a person’s capacity to shape her life in accordance with her own ideas of the good to explain why her death can be bad for her, and why each of us should have primary say over what may be done to her. The thesis begins with an investigation of the badness of death for the person who dies. If death is bad for us, this helps explain the wrongness of killing. The thesis defends the deprivation account—i.e. the idea that death is bad for us when and because it deprives us of good life—against two Epicurean challenges. It adds that death is also bad when and because it thwarts our agency. Next, the thesis deals with the logic of our moral rights to non-interference. It proposes a conception of rights according to which the stringency of our rights derives from and is justified by the rational aspect of our human nature. It argues that this conception of moral rights solves the paradox of deontology. While our rights to non-interference are stringent, they are not absolute. The thesis considers two possible exceptions to the general rule that it is impermissible to harm an innocent person against her consent. First, using an actual case from WWII, it investigates the circumstances under which a government may expose some parts of its population to an increased risk of harm in order to decrease the risk to others. Second, it considers the permissibility of self-defence against an innocent threat. It argues that the potential victim of an innocent threat has a justice-based reason to treat her own interests as on a par with those of the threat.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Rights, explanation, and risks.David McCarthy - 1997 - Ethics 107 (2):205-225.
Killing and dying.Dan Moller - 2006 - American Philosophical Quarterly 43 (3):235-247.
On revaluing the currency of human rights.Katherine Eddy - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):307-328.
Mortal harm.Steven Luper - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):239–251.
Defense.Kai Draper - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):69 - 88.
Death's Distinctive Harm.Stephan Blatti - 2012 - American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):317-30.
The right, the good and the jurisprude.Wojciech Sadurski - 1988 - Law and Philosophy 7 (1):35 - 66.
Lucretius and the Fears of Death.Peter Aronoff - 1997 - Dissertation, Cornell University
The Metaphysics of death.John Martin Fischer (ed.) - 1993 - Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Can death be a harm to the person who dies?W. Glannon - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):e3-e3.
The Reciprocity Theory of Rights.David Rodin - 2014 - Law and Philosophy 33 (3):281-308.
The identity and (legal) rights of future generations.Ori J. Herstein - 2009 - The George Washington Law Review 77:1173.
Rights against polluters.Andrew Kernohan - 1995 - Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-03-28

Downloads
63 (#231,470)

6 months
7 (#175,814)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Susanne Burri
Universität Konstanz

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
On What Matters: Two-Volume Set.Derek Parfit - 2011 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 104 references / Add more references