Abstract

The actualist/possibilist debate concerns whether, when evaluating an agent’s act, we should hold fixed what else they would freely choose to do. While this debate has shaped our deontic theories over the last several decades, it has not had a similar impact on theorizing about harm and benefit. As a result, the leading accounts of harm and benefit accept actualism. I argue that this makes them susceptible to a number of objections that are avoided by turning to possibilism, and I defend a new possibilist account of harm and benefit that fits into a broader, possibilist-friendly picture of how harm and benefit generate reasons.