We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
HARM PRINCIPLES.
- Authors
Edwards, James
- Abstract
Much time has been spent arguing about the soundness of “the harm principle.” But in the philosophical literature there is no single such principle; there are many harm principles. And many objections pressed against “the harm principle” are objections to only some of these principles. The first half of this paper draws a number of distinctions between harm principles. It then argues that each harm principle is compatible with many other principles that impose limits on the law, including but not limited to other harm principles. The second half of the paper applies the lessons of the first to a number of prominent objections to “the harm principle.” That principle has been accused of a) being underinclusive; b) misrepresenting the reasons why many act-types ought to be legally proscribed; c) permitting lawmakers to treat people as mere means of achieving their ends; and d) being overinclusive. The paper argues that one harm principle survives all four objections.
- Subjects
PHILOSOPHICAL literature; HARM (Ethics); LEGISLATORS; CRIME; CRIMINAL liability; DURESS (Law)
- Publication
Legal Theory, 2014, Vol 20, Issue 4, p253
- ISSN
1352-3252
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1017/S135232521500004X