Abstract
In this paper, we present a Capabilities-based Approach to the acceptability and the tolerability of risks posed by natural and man-made hazards. We argue that judgments about the acceptability and/or tolerability of such risks should be based on an evaluation of the likely societal impact of potential hazards, defined in terms of the expected changes in the capabilities of individuals. Capabilities refer to the functionings, or valuable doings and beings, individuals are able to achieve given available personal, material, and social resources. The likely impact of a hazard on individuals’ capabilities should, we argue, be compared against two separate thresholds. The first threshold specifies the minimum level of capabilities attainment that is acceptable in principle for individuals to have in the aftermath of a hazard over any period of time. This threshold captures the level that individuals’ capabilities ideally should not fall below. A risk is acceptable if the probability that the attained capabilities will be less than the acceptable level is sufficiently small. In practice, it can be tolerable for some individuals to temporarily fall below the acceptable threshold, provided this situation of lower capabilities attainment is temporary, reversible, and the probability that capabilities will fall below a tolerability threshold is sufficiently small. This second, tolerable threshold delimits an absolute minimum level of capabilities attainment below which no individual in a society should ever fall, regardless of whether that level of capabilities attainment is temporary or reversible. In this paper, we describe and justify this Capabilities-based Approach to the acceptability and tolerability of risks. We argue that the proposed theoretical framework avoids the limitations in current approaches to acceptable risk. The proposed approach focuses the attention of risk analysts directly on what should be our primary concern when judging the acceptability and the tolerability of risks, namely, how risks impact the well-being of individuals in a society. Also, our Capabilities-based Approach offers a transparent, easily communicable way for determining the acceptability and the tolerability of risks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This point was made by Douglas MacLean in his keynote address, “Ethics, reasons, and the role of risk analysis,” at the conference on “The Ethical Aspects of Risk” hosted by Delft University of Technology June 14–16, 2006.
References
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 30–53). Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S., & Gerrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11–27.
May, P. J. (2001). Societal Perspectives about earthquake performance: The fallacy of “Acceptable Risk”. Earthquake Spectra, 17(4), 725–737.
Murphy, C., & Gardoni, P. (2006). The role of society in engineering risk analysis: A capabilities-based approach. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 1085–1095.
Gardoni, P., & Murphy, C. (2006). A capabilities-based approach to measuring the societal impacts of natural and man-made hazards. Natural Hazard Review (Submitted).
Hunter, P. R., & Fewtrell, L. (2001). Acceptable risk. In L. Fewtrell & J. Bartram (Eds.), Water quality: Guidelines, standards, and health (pp 207–227). London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2005) Engineering ethics: Concepts & cases, 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Press.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3), 36–39, 14–20.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks: Which risks are acceptable. Environment, 2(4), 17–20, 32–38.
MacLean, D. (ed.) (1986). Values at risk. Towata, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Anderson, E. (1988). Values, risks, and market norms. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17(1), 54–65.
Paté, M. E. (1983). Acceptable decision processes and acceptable risks in public sector regulations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(3), 113–124.
Sen, A. (1989). Development as capabilities expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41–58.
Nussbaum, M. (2000a). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2000b). Aristotle, politics, and human capabilities: A response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan. Ethics, 111(1), 102–140.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). The income component of the human development index. Journal of Human Development, 1(1), 83–106.
Raworth, K., & Stewart, D. (2003). Critiques of the human development index: A review. In S. Fukuda-Parr & A. K. Shiva Kumar (Eds.), Readings in Human Development (pp. 140–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fukuda-Parr (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 301–317.
Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.
Gardoni, P., Murphy, C., & Sanchez, M. (2006). The Implementation of a capabilities-based approach to measuring the societal impacts of natural and man-made hazards. Risk Analysis (Submitted).
Ang, A. H-S., & Tang, W. H. (2006). Probability concepts in engineering. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sen, A. (1996). On the status of equality. Political Theory, 24(3), 394–400.
Ditlevsen, O., & Madsen, H. O. (1996). Structural reliability methods. New York: Wiley.
Jahan, S. (2003). Evolution of the human development index. In S. Fukuda-Parr & A. K. Shiva Kumar (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 128–139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
A draft of this paper was presented at the conference on the “Ethical Aspects of Risk” at Delft University of Technology in Delft, The Netherlands, June 14–16, 2006. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments they received, in particular from Profs. Douglas McLean (Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Paul Slovic (Department of Psychology, University of Oregon). We also thank Ms. Katya Hosking and Mrs. Kathleen Murphy for their helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, C., Gardoni, P. The Acceptability and the Tolerability of Societal Risks: A Capabilities-based Approach. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 77–92 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9031-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9031-8