Abstract
In this article, I argue for a distinct and novel right-based account of risks and I call it the Sophisticated High-risk Thesis. I argue that there is a distinction between rights-infringing risk impositions and no-rights-infringing risk impositions. An action imposing a high risk of harm infringes rights, whereas an act imposing a low risk of harm does not. I also suggest three principles that govern the permissibility of highly risky actions. If a highly risky action meets the conditions specified by any of these three principles, it can be justified. These principles are the consent principle*, the prevent disaster principle* and the reciprocity principle**. I show that the Sophisticated High-risk Thesis is, in general, better than the alternative Risk Thesis defended by McCarthy.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 763-778 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | Ethical Theory and Moral Practice |
Volume | 22 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2019 |
Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
Keywords
- Consent
- Disaster prevention
- Reciprocity
- Right-based account of risk
- Risk thesis