The Moral Status of Enabling Harm Revisited

ABSTRACT Most non‐consequentialists accept that, other things equal, it is more difficult to justify doing harm than it is to justify allowing harm . But there is a further question regarding the moral status of enabling harm. Rickless (2011), following in the footsteps of Foot (1967) and Hanser (1999), has defended the moral equivalence of enabling harm and allowing harm (MEEA). His case for MEEA, as well as MEEA itself, has been criticized by Barry and Øverland (2016), as well as by Lippert‐Rasmussen (2015). In this essay, I revisit this controversy and argue that MEEA and the existing arguments for it withstand all of these criticisms.