Abstract
AbstractIn a recent article in this journal, Justin Klocksiem proposes a novel response to the widely discussed failure to benefit problem for the counterfactual comparative account of harm (CCA). According to Klocksiem, proponents of CCA can deal with this problem by distinguishing between facts about there being harm and facts about an agent's having done harm. In this reply, we raise three sets of problems for Klocksiem's approach.
Funder
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Vetenskapsrådet
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Philosophy