ABSTRACT

This paper vindicates using the harm principle (HP) to justify restricting consumer’s access to meat products in light of the impact that it has on the development of antibiotic resistance (ABR). In particular, the study claims that, since an individual instance of consumption, or purchase of meat, meaningfully contributes to the development of ABR in farming environments, a state intervention limiting consumer freedom would be legitimate. The causal impact of individuals in greater-scale problems has long been debated and dismissed as not relevant. The study analyzed two possible formulations of the inconsequentialist objection. While the first formulation, which maintains that individuals have no impact, can be rejected independently of the context of application, rejecting the second formulation, which maintains that this impact is insufficient to warrant applying HP, is more difficult. In order to successfully respond to this version of inconsequentialism, the paper vindicates the value of considering ABR and ABR-related harm within a more traditional expected utility arguments.

摘要

鉴于肉制品对抗生素耐药性 (ABR) 发展的影响，本文使用危害原则 (HP) 来证明限制消费者获取肉制品是合理的。特别是，该研究声称，由于消费或购买肉类的个体实例对农业环境中 ABR 的发展有意义，因此限制消费者自由的国家干预将是合法的。长期以来，个人在更大规模问题中的因果影响一直存在争议，并因无关紧要而被驳回。该研究分析了无关紧要论者反对的两种可能表述。虽然第一个公式认为个人没有影响，但可以独立于应用上下文拒绝，拒绝第二个公式，认为这种影响不足以保证应用 HP 的人更难。为了成功回应这种无关紧要论，本文证明了在更传统的预期效用论证中考虑 ABR 和 ABR 相关危害的价值。