The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk

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