Dangerous Work, Intention, and the Ethics of Hazard Pay
Author:
- 17 August 2020
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Business Ethics Quarterly
- Vol. 30 (4) , 591-602
Abstract
Is offering hazard pay ethically permissible when the pay premium is the only reason that a dangerous job is accepted? Robert C. Hughes argues that it is not. Central to his argument is the claim that in such cases, workers intend the foreseeable risks of harm as a means to the pay premium. Herein I question the plausibility of this claim and then develop a conception of the concept of means sufficient to make it plausible. By so doing, I provide support for Hughes’s stringent position.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reflections and Responses2013
- Intention and Identity2011
- The Frankfurt Cases: The Moral of the StoriesPhilosophical Review, 2010
- “Direct” and “Indirect”: A Reply to Critics of our Action TheoryThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 2001
- Distinguishing Intention from ForesightInternational Philosophical Quarterly, 2001
- Object and Intention in Moral Judgments According to AquinasThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 1991
- Two Faces of IntentionPhilosophical Review, 1984
- Natural Law and Natural RightsUniversity of Toronto Law Journal, 1980
- The Theory of Morality1977
- An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double EffectTheological Studies, 1949