In a recent article in this journal, Eli Pitcovski puts forward a novel, explanation-based account of harm. We seek to show that Pitcovski’s account, and his arguments in favor of it, can be substantially improved. However, we also argue that, even thus improved, the account faces a dilemma. The dilemma concerns the question of what it takes for an event, E, to explain why a state, P, does not obtain. Does this require that P would have obtained if E had not occurred? Pitcovski’s theory faces problems no matter how one answers that question.

中文翻译：

---

皮特科夫斯基对伤害的基于解释的描述

在本杂志最近的一篇文章中，Eli Pitcovski 提出了一种新颖的、基于解释的伤害解释。我们试图表明，皮特科夫斯基的说法以及他支持该说法的论据可以得到实质性改进。然而，我们也认为，即使如此改善，该账户仍面临困境。这个困境涉及事件 E 需要什么来解释为什么状态 P 没有获得的问题。这是否要求如果 E 没有发生，P 就会获得？无论人们如何回答这个问题，皮特科夫斯基的理论都面临着问题。