Abstract

This paper defends what I call the ‘wellbeing conception of harm’, according to which the relevant criterion for determining whether one has suffered harm is whether they have been made worse off in terms of their wellbeing. Firstly, I explain why it is that one might find the wellbeing conception of harm appealing to begin with. Then, I respond to two sets of concerns that have been levied against the wellbeing conception of harm. The first set of concerns relate to the implausible moral/political consequences that would allegedly follow from adopting the wellbeing conception of harm. The second set of concerns challenge the practical significance of adopting the wellbeing conception of harm. I conclude with some remarks on how the wellbeing conception of harm can help to answer, or at least navigate, some controversial issues related to harm.