Benefits Are Better than Harms: A Reply to Feit

Australasian Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX


We have argued that the counterfactual comparative account of harm and benefit (CCA) violates the plausible adequacy condition that an act that would harm an agent cannot leave her much better off than an alternative act that would benefit her. In a recent paper in this journal, however, Neil Feit objects that our argument presupposes questionable counterfactual backtracking. He also argues that CCA proponents can justifiably reject the condition by invoking so-called plural harm and benefit. In this reply, we argue that Feit’s lines of criticism are both unsuccessful.

Author Profiles

Erik Carlson
Uppsala Universitet
Jens Johansson
Uppsala University
Olle Risberg
Uppsala University


Added to PP

100 (#81,888)

6 months
58 (#64,919)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?