In the literature about harm, the counterfactual comparative account has emerged as a main contender. According to it, an event constitutes a harm for someone iff the person is worse off than they would otherwise have been as a result. But the counterfactual comparative account faces significant challenges, one of the most serious of which stems from examples involving non-harmful omitted actions or non-occurring events, which it tends to misclassify as harms: for example, Robin is worse off when Batman does not give him a new set of golf clubs, but Batman has not harmed him. In this article, I will clearly state the counterfactual comparative account; state and explain this objection to the account; canvass several unsatisfactory responses; and attempt to show how the account can overcome the objection. This solution involves distinguishing between principles concerning the existence of harm and principles concerning attributions of responsibility for harm.

在有关伤害的文献中，反事实比较账户已成为主要竞争者。根据它，一个事件对某人构成伤害，前提是该人的境况比他们原本的境况更糟。但反事实比较账户面临重大挑战，其中最严重的挑战之一源于涉及无害遗漏动作或非发生事件的示例，它往往将其误分类为危害：例如，当蝙蝠侠不这样做时，罗宾的情况更糟给他一套新的高尔夫球杆，但蝙蝠侠并没有伤害他。在这篇文章中，我将清楚地说明反事实比较账户；陈述并解释对账户的反对意见；调查几个不满意的答复；并尝试展示该帐户如何克服反对意见。