NDLI: Transcending the Means Principle

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Transcending the Means Principle

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Author	Walen, Alec
Copyright Year	2013
Abstract	A robust, if not absolute, prohibition on treating people merely as a means seems to sit at the core of common sense deontological morality. But the principle prohibiting such treatment, the ‘means principle’ (MP), has been notoriously hard to defend: both the subjective, intention-focused and the objective, causal-role-focused interpretations of what it means to use someone as a means face potent objections. In this paper, my goal is not to defend the MP, but to articulate and defend a new principle, which I call the Restricting Claims Principle (RCP), that explains why a person’s causal role is morally significant. The RCP broadens the basic frame of relevant considerations from the MP’s concern with the dyadic relationship between agent and patient to a global balance of patient-claims on an agent. It distinguishes two kinds of patient-claims that weigh in that balance: restricting and non-restricting. In most cases, these can be distinguished as follows: Restricting claims, if respected as rights, would restrict an agent from doing what she could otherwise permissibly do if the claimant (or his property) were absent; non-restricting claims, if respected as rights, would not in that way restrict an agent. Only restricting claims press to make others worse off than if the claimant were absent. The RCP holds that restricting claims must therefore be substantially weaker than non-restricting ones. The claims of those who would be used as a means are non-restricting, while the claims of those who would be harmed as a side effect are restricting. Thus the RCP can account for the same cases (mostly) as the MP, without having to rely on the MP to do so.
Starting Page	427
Ending Page	464
Page Count	38
File Format	PDF
ISSN	01675249
Journal	Law and Philosophy
Volume Number	33
Issue Number	4
e-ISSN	15730522
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Netherlands
Publisher Date	2013-06-05
Publisher Place	Dordrecht
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History Philosophy of Law Ethics Political Philosophy
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Philosophy Law

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The Restricting Claims Principle Revisited: Grounding the Means Principle on the Agent–Patient Divide

What the Epistemic Account of Vagueness Means for Legal Interpretation

Gardner on Legal Reasoning

The Principle of Generic Consistency as the Supreme Principle of Human Rights

Is the Free Market Acceptable to Everyone?

Why We Shouldn’t Reject Conflicts: A Critique of Tadros

Double Effect and the Criminal Law

Reply to Professor Klosko

Promises Schmomises

Transcending the Means Principle

Similar Documents

The Restricting Claims Principle Revisited: Grounding the Means Principle on the Agent–Patient Divide

What the Epistemic Account of Vagueness Means for Legal Interpretation

Gardner on Legal Reasoning

The Principle of Generic Consistency as the Supreme Principle of Human Rights

Is the Free Market Acceptable to Everyone?

Why We Shouldn’t Reject Conflicts: A Critique of Tadros

Double Effect and the Criminal Law

Reply to Professor Klosko

Promises Schmomises

Transcending the Means Principle