| Title |
Responsibility as an Obstacle to Good Policy: The Case of Lifestyle Related Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-018-9860-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Levy |
| Abstract |
There is a lively debate over who is to blame for the harms arising from unhealthy behaviours, like overeating and excessive drinking. In this paper, I argue that given how demanding the conditions required for moral responsibility actually are, we cannot be highly confident that anyone is ever morally responsible. I also adduce evidence that holding people responsible for their unhealthy behaviours has costs: it undermines public support for the measures that are likely to have the most impact on these harms. I claim that these two facts-the fact that we cannot be highly confident that anyone is morally responsible and the fact that holding people responsible for their unhealthy behaviours has costs-interact. Together they give us a powerful reason for believing, or acting as if we believed, that ordinary people are not in fact responsible for their unhealthy behaviours. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2019.
All research outputs
#20,520,426
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#569
of 603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,023
of 329,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.