Contractualism and risk imposition
Contractualism and risk imposition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1470594x07085153
复制
发表时间：
2008-02-01
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Lenman, James
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lenman, James
本文考察了契约主义道德理论的渊源，以期理解风险强加的伦理学。在某些方面，契约主义似乎很好地解释了如何才能合理地接受受到伤害的风险，而这种风险的直接强加是不可接受的。然而，很难弄清楚什么是直接性，特别是考虑到很难充分激励传统观点，这些观点将伦理意义赋予代理人的意图，而不仅仅是预见。这篇文章考虑了两个可能对承包主义者有帮助的原则：再分配原则，虽然有吸引力，但可能有些过于严格，以及目标一致性原则，它赋予目标伦理意义，无论我们的实际意图是什么，我们的行动原则上与这些目标保持一致。文章还考虑了事前和事后评价行动和原则的相对重要性。
The article investigates the resources of contractualist moral theory to make sense of the ethics of risk imposition. In some ways, contractualism seems well placed to explain how it can be reasonable to accept exposure to risk of harms whose direct imposition would not be acceptable. However, there are difficulties getting clear about what directness comes to here, especially given the difficulty of adequately motivating traditional views that assign ethical significance to what the agent intends as opposed to merely foreseeing. The article considers two principles which might help the contractualist: the Redistribution Principle, which, while attractive, is perhaps somewhat too restrictive, and the Aim Consistency Principle, which grants ethical significance to the aims with which our actions are in principle consistent whatever our actual intentions may be. The article also considers the relative significance of ex ante and ex post perspectives from which to evaluate actions and principles.