Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
According to the standard version of the counterfactual comparative account of harm, an event is overall harmful for an individual if and only if she would have been on balance better off if it had not occurred. This view faces the “preemption problem.” In the recent literature, there are various ingenious attempts to deal with this problem, some of which involve slight additions to, or modifications of, the counterfactual comparative account. We argue, however, that none of these attempts work, and that the preemption problem continues to haunt the counterfactual comparative account.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johansson et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: