 On Barry and Øverland’s view, safety net cases count as enablings. When an agent enables harm, there is a ‘relevant action’ (“there is an answer to the question of how she was relevant to [the harm] that refers to something she did” – see Barry and Øverland 2016, 116) but the action is not connected to the harm through a complete causal process. Barry and Øverland argue that an agent can be expected to bear greater costs to avoid doing harm than to avoid enabling harm, but greater costs to avoid enabling harm than merely allowing harm.