首页> 外文期刊>Ethics, policy and environment >Security and Distribution, or Should You Care about Merely Possible Losses?
【24h】

Security and Distribution, or Should You Care about Merely Possible Losses?

机译:安全和分配,还是您只关心可能的损失?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Jonathan Herington argues that harms can occur whether or not there is actually a loss. He claims that subjectively or objectively merely being at risk of losing access to basic goods is sufficient for lowering that individual's well-being for the value of 'security'. I challenge whether losing access to basic goods is sufficient to justify the introduction of this value. I also point to some issues in his interpretation of IPCC risk categories and the social science research he relies on.
机译:乔纳森·赫灵顿(Jonathan Herington)辩称,无论实际上是否存在损失,都可能造成伤害。他声称,主观或客观上仅处于失去基本商品风险的状态足以降低个人对“安全”价值的福祉。我质疑失去基本商品是否足以证明引入这一价值是合理的。在他对IPCC风险类别的解释以及他所依赖的社会科学研究方面,我也指出了一些问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号