The counterfactual comparative account of harm faces problems in cases that involve overdetermination and preemption. An influential strategy for dealing with these problems, drawing on a suggestion made by Derek Parfit, is to appeal to plural harm—several events together harming someone. We argue that the most well-known version of this strategy, due to Neil Feit, as well as Magnus Jedenheim Edling’s more recent version, is fatally flawed. We also present some general reasons for doubting that the overdetermination and preemption problems for the counterfactual comparative account can be satisfactorily solved by appealing to plural harm.

在涉及过度决定和先发制人的情况下，伤害的反事实比较说明会面临问题。根据 Derek Parfit 的建议，处理这些问题的一个有影响力的策略是诉诸多重伤害——多个事件一起伤害某人。我们认为，由于 Neil Feit 以及 Magnus Jedenheim Edling 的最新版本，该策略最著名的版本存在致命缺陷。我们还提出了一些怀疑反事实比较帐户的过度决定和先发制人问题能否通过诉诸多元伤害得到圆满解决的一般理由。