1 / 7

The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk

The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk. Christian Munthe Department of Philosophy, Göteborg University Based on: Munthe C, The Morality of Precaution: Towards an Interpretation and Justification of the Precautionary Principle (2006, in progress). The Precautionary Principle.

Download Presentation

The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk Christian Munthe Department of Philosophy, Göteborg University Based on: Munthe C, The Morality of Precaution: Towards an Interpretation and Justification of the Precautionary Principle (2006, in progress)

  2. The Precautionary Principle • Many different formulations • In the face of some activities that are risky to some extent, some measure may/should be undertaken. (cf. P. Sandin) • Basic underlying thought: lack of precaution has a morally significant price - we have reason to avoid it. • My former neighbour, the terrorist • Three recurring ideas: • The Burden of Proof Requirement • The Proof Requirement of Justifiable Policy Claim (Rio Declaration, EU) • The Requirement of Precaution (TRP) • Activities that may bring great harm should not be (allowed to be) undertaken unless they have been shown not to bring too serious risks. • TRP best expresses the underlying idea of PP • The other two are either possible instruments of implementation or lack action or policy guiding power.

  3. Interpretation & Justification • Unclarities of TRP: • May (de minimis risk, proof standards?) • Harm (what values?) • Great harm (how much must be at stake?) • Shown (proof standards?) • Risks (likelihood, outcome, combination, quantitative or qualitative?) • Too serious risks (ethics of risks) • Different combinations of specifications render different versions of TRP (or PP) that prescribe different policies. • What version is more justified? • Two formal requirements: • Avoid decisional paralysis: some option has to be permitted • Supported by reasons (not arbitrary): anti-conservatism. • Meet the standard arguments against PP (Harris, Häyri, McKinney, Sunstein et. al.) • Leaves a large number of very different versions.

  4. The Ethics of Precaution • Some versions of TRP will prescribe the use of more time, resources and/or the abstaining from more potentially beneficial activities than others. • The potential benefits may include reduction of serious risks or prevention of great harm! • THUS: also precaution has a morally significant price • SO: What price of precaution is acceptable in order to avoid lack of precaution? • Example: Environmentally beneficial GMO crop with unclear long-term risks of ecological disaster. • The aim of the ethics of precaution is to identify the version of TRP that prescribes a (morally) proper price of precaution • This requires an ethics of risks

  5. Problems in the Ethics of Risks • Decision Theory or Traditional Ethics cannot solve the key issues (lack of normativity or too factualistic): • What reason do we have to avoid risks (as such)? • What determines the strength of these reasons? • How should our reasons to avoid risks be balanced against • Chances to achieve benefits (avoidance of other risks) • Benefits • Harms • Are there “forbidden risks”? • The extinction of humanity? • What reasons do we have with regard to “epistemic risks” • Creating risks on the basis of an unnecessary uncertain risk assessment is a morally relevant drawback • Reducing uncertainty has a price • No way of knowing what the actual outcome of reducing uncertainty will be (if we knew, there would be no uncertainty!)

  6. My own ideas… • There are no “forbidden risks” (decisional paralysis) • In order for the imposition of a risk to be morally responsible there has to bee a sufficiently good reason. • “Unnecessary” risks indefensible. • VERY many consumer products and practices in our society due to doubtful or marginal chances of benefits • The responsibility of imposing risks is a matter of degree relative to… • What options are open in a situation • The moral importance of the harms, benefits, risks and chances produced by these options • The quality of the basis of knowledge for the assessment of the above • Hallandsåsen… • Improving this quality always has a price that has to be taken into the equation • Avoidance of harm/risks increasingly more important than securing further (chances of) benefits if an option secures a sufficiently acceptable mix of risks and chances.

  7. Practical Implications • The important thing is not PP, but to have policies that prescribe a proper price of precaution. Such policies… • …make use of science but stand free from it: • Moral assessments have the last call • Stronger requirement of evidence based policy making than today • …are not essentially conservative or reactionary (but may have “revisionary” implications). • …allow for “calculated risk taking” (RCB-analysis still useful) • …prescribe a higher price of precaution the better off we are • …have implications for global justice: • Affluent nations overproducers of risks • Underdeveloped countries underproducers of risks • Example: Endowment of pollution rights for trade á la Kyoto • …should ideally be applied on a global scale • The precaution of many nations may add up to a global lack of precaution • A challenge fort current models of international policy making

More Related