Contractualism and risk imposition

Bibliographic Data

ID7354288
AuthorsJames Lenman (0000-0003-3823-6089, University of Sheffield, corresponding author)
Year2008
Volume7
Issue1
Pages99-122
Publication date2008-01-25
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitics Philosophy & Economics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1470-594X • E-ISSN: 1741-3060
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1470594x07085153
OpenAlexW2137204690
LanguageEN
Citations received21

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

Consistency (knowledge bases · Contractualism · Economics · Epistemology · Ethical theory · Ex-ante · Law and economics · Political science · Positive economics · Principle of double effect · Redistribution (election · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Ethics in medical practice · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub