I wish to examine a rather different way of thinking about permissibility, one according to which, roughly speaking, an agent acts impermissibly if and only if he acts for reasons insufficient to justify him in doing what he does. For reasons that will emerge in Section II, I call this the inferential account of permissibility. I shall not here try to prove that this account is superior to its rivals. My aims are more modest. I shall develop the inferential account, (...) exhibiting some of its attractions along the way, and then show that it is invulnerable to a number of influential objections to the very idea that an agent's reasons for acting could be directly relevant to whether he acts permissibly. If these objections have seemed decisive, it is because we have not considered the full range of possible accounts. The inferential account of permissibility is both plausible and attractive---it deserves to be taken seriously. (shrink)

The distinction between killing and letting die is too simple. A third category must also be recognized. Like killing, preventing a person from being saved is a species of doing harm; like killing, it infringes one of the victim's negative rights. Yet preventing a person from being saved is morally on a par with letting die, which infringes one of the victim's positive rights. It follows that we cannot explain the moral inequivalence of killing and letting die by saying, as (...) so many have, that negative rights are more stringent than positive rights. A more promising strategy is suggested at the end of the article. (shrink)

The paper explores how harm must be understood if intuitively attractive deontological principles concerning the infliction and prevention of harm are to be vindicated. It focuses especially upon how harm must be understood if it is to be plausible that preventing people from undergoing harm takes priority over improving the conditions of badly-off people who have not suffered harm.

This article has two main sections. In Section I, I argue against the skeptic's position. I examine an attempt to see both prima facie objections as arising from features that killing and letting die have in common, and then argue that all such attempts are doomed to failure. In Section II, I explain how even defenders of the distinction's significance have misconstrued the difference between the two objections. In so doing I attempt to develop a better account of why killing (...) and letting die are prima facie objectionable. I also briefly explore some related matters. (shrink)

An agent's intentional doings are often taken to be those for which a certain sort of teleological explanation is available: they are the ones that can be fitted into sequences of the form 'agent A-s in order to B, B-s in order to C, and so on'. It is natural to think that such teleological orderings are produced entirely by the agent's own (perhaps idealized) practical reasoning, and that they thus reveal the intentions with which the agent acts: he A-s (...) with the intention of thereby B-ing, B-s with the intention of thereby C-ing, and so on. This in turn suggests that if an agent X-s 'non-basically', he X-s intentionally if and only if he does something else with the intention of thereby X-ing. But what an agent intentionally does can also depend upon how his doings fit into 'autonomous teleologies' - teleologies having their origins outside of his will. If an agent intentionally A-s as part of his job, he might thereby intentionally A-s, where A-ing consists in operating a machine, he might thereby intentionally B not because his intention in A-ing is to B, but because A-ing is for the sake of B-ing in the machine's teleology. (shrink)

It is widely held by philosophers of action that an agent does something intentionally only if he does it either as an end or as a means to an end. We are, however, strongly inclined to describe certain doings as intentional despite the apparent failure of this condition to be met. Can we explain the intentionalness of these doings without committing ourselves to saying that agents do all sorts of things intentionally which they manifestly do not?

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Section Heading numbers were erroneously removed in the article.

Some philosopher argue that the distinction between killing and letting die lacks moral significance, since the prima facie objections to both arise from a feature which killing and letting die share: Either way, an agent chooses a course of action resulting in someone's dying, when he could have chosen a course of action having the opposite result. I find this claim ambiguous. Does it mean that in either case, if the agent had chosen the alternative course of action, the victim (...) would not have died at all, at least not for some time yet? Or does it mean that if the agent had acted differently, the victim would have died a death numerically distinct from his actual death? ;I argue that killing is prima facie objectionable owing to the causal relation connecting the agent's action to the victim's token death. If an agent kills someone, his action is prima facie objectionable even if another agent would have killed the person moments later anyway. But failing to prevent a token death event is not in itself prima facie objectionable. On the whole, such a failure is prima facie objectionable only if preventing that token death event would have benefited the victim. And on the whole, preventing a token death event benefits the victim only if it prevents there from occurring any event of the type death of that person, at least for some time yet. ;I do not provide a positive rationale for attributing moral significance to the distinction between killing and letting die. Rather, I try to undermine skepticism about the possibility of providing such a rationale by demonstrating that the prima facie objections to killing and letting die cannot be accounted for in the same way. I also discuss the nature of killing and letting die, how both differ from enabling someone's death to occur, and the relationship between the concepts of harm and benefit. (shrink)

There is no quick and easy answer to the question whether research activities that endanger bystanders without their consent ever thereby violate those bystanders’ rights. We cannot dismiss the idea that bystanders possess strong rights against researchers simply on the grounds that they are, after all, merely bystanders. Indeed, it is easy to imagine scenarios in which researchers would be morally required to gain the informed consent of bystanders whom they risk harming. Whether bystander consent is required in any particular (...) real‐world case will depend, in part, upon exactly how the research activity endangers them. (shrink)