Imposing pure risks – risks that do not materialise into harm – is sometimes wrong. The Harm Account explains this wrongness by claiming that pure risks are harms. By contrast, The Autonomy Account claims that pure risks impede autonomy. We develop two objections to these influential accounts. The Separation Objection proceeds from the observation that, if it is wrong to v then it is sometimes wrong to risk v-ing. The intuitive plausibility of this claim does not depend on any account of the facts that ground moral wrongness. This suggests a close relationship between the factors that make an act wrong and the factors that make risking that act wrong, which both accounts fail to recognise. The Determinism Objection holds that both accounts fail to explain the wrongness of pure risks in a deterministic world. We then develop an alternative – The Buck-Passing Account – that withstands both objections.

中文翻译：

---

风险有什么问题？

强加纯粹的风险——不会变成伤害的风险——有时是错误的。伤害账户通过声称纯粹的风险就是伤害来解释这种错误。相比之下，自治帐户声称纯粹的风险会阻碍自治。我们对这些有影响力的帐户提出了两个反对意见。分离异议源于以下观察：如果 v 是错误的，那么冒 v-ing 的风险有时也是错误的。这一主张的直观合理性并不取决于对道德错误基础的任何事实的解释。这表明导致行为错误的因素与导致行为错误的风险因素之间存在密切关系，这两种说法都没有认识到。决定论反对意见认为，这两种说法都未能解释确定性世界中纯粹风险的错误。