Why act when the effects of one’s act are negligible? For example, why boycott sweatshop or animal products if doing so makes no difference for the better? According to recent proposals, one may still have a reason to boycott in order to avoid complicity or participation in harm. Julia Nefsky has argued that accounts of this kind suffer from the so-called “superfluity problem,” basically the question of why agents can be said to participate in harm if they make no difference to it. This paper develops and responds to Nefsky’s challenge.

中文翻译：

---

参与与多余

当一个人的行为的影响可以忽略不计时，为什么要采取行动？例如，如果这样做没有任何好处，为什么要抵制血汗工厂或动物产品？根据最近的提议，人们可能仍然有理由抵制，以避免串通一气或参与伤害。朱莉娅·内夫斯基 (Julia Nefsky) 认为，此类帐户存在所谓的“多余问题”，基本上是一个问题，即如果代理人对其没有影响，为什么可以说他们参与了伤害。本文发展并回应了 Nefsky 的挑战。