Securing obligations: a reply to Hindriks

Authors

  • Mattias Gunnemyr University of Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Caroline Torpe Touborg Independent Researcher, Sweden

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v17i1.869

Abstract

In his contribution to this special issue, Hindriks considers the Security Principle, an account of pro tanto obligations based on our account of reasons (Gunnemyr and Touborg 2023a). According to the Security Principle, you have a pro tanto obligation not to perform an action that makes a harm more secure. Hindriks raises two objections to this account. First, that it is too flexible; second, that it gives wrong verdicts when agents are robustly unwilling to act in a certain way. Here, we respond to Hindriks’ objections and argue that Hindriks’ account, the Threshold Principle, gives counterintuitive verdicts in preemption and low-probability cases.

Author Biographies

Mattias Gunnemyr, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Mattias Gunnemyr is a postdoctoral researcher in the Financial Ethics Research Group at the Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science at the University of Gothenburg. He specializes in the ethics of inefficacy, particularly focusing on climate ethics, financial ethics and causation.

Caroline Torpe Touborg, Independent Researcher, Sweden

Caroline Torpe Touborg is an independent researcher working on causation, responsibility, and climate change. She has previously been a post-doctoral researcher with the Lund Gothenburg Responsibility Project and at Umeå University.

Downloads

Published

2024-07-05

How to Cite

Gunnemyr, M., & Touborg, C. T. (2024). Securing obligations: a reply to Hindriks. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 17(1), aa-aa. https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v17i1.869