BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260315T043405Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20171031T113000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20171031T130000
SUMMARY:‘No Harm in Looking? Observation as Wrongdoing’ (co-authored with Jonathan Parry) 
UID:20260322T213534Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:2427:b7ff:fe4c:4e38%3
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:Royal Parade\, Melbourne\, Australia\, 3010
DESCRIPTION:<p>Consider <em>Revenge:</em></p>\n<p><em>Revenge</em>: Adam posts intimate photographs of Brenda on a &lsquo\;revenge porn&rsquo\; website without her consent. Craig visits the website to view these sorts of pictures\, and sees the pictures of Brenda.</p>\n<p>How should we evaluate the normative situation of Craig\, who merely views the images? We defend the following thesis:</p>\n<p><em>Observation as wrongdoing</em>: Observation of another&rsquo\;s wrongdoing\, or observation that enables another&rsquo\;s wrongdoing\, can further wrong the victim of that wrongdoing. In virtue of this wronging\, observers incur special obligations to bear costs (<em>ex ante</em> and/or <em>ex post</em>) for the sake of victims of primary wrongdoing</p>\n<p>We defend four ways in which observation can constitute a form of wronging. Observation can be wrong insofar as it <em>compounds </em>a primary wrong. Observation can <em>enable</em> a primary wrongdoing. Observation can be understood as a distinctive form of <em>benefitting</em><em>from injustice</em>. And\, most straightforwardly\, observation violates privacy.</p>
ORGANIZER;CN=Holly Lawford-Smith:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR