Some people are safe from harm yet remain in positions where things could easily go badly for them. Their proximity to worlds where something bad happens to them makes their situation ethically precarious. In some worlds, they are excluded, punished, or abandoned, which deserves attention in its own right. We argue that this is not just a matter of risk or harm, but about how people are placed within the space of possible worlds. We explain this through a modal account of difference-making and use it to highlight attitudinal responses fitting to fragility and introduce duties of modal security: moral reasons to protect one another from positions where small changes could lead to significant loss.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garcia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: