The assumptions behind the assumptions in the war on terror: Risk assessment as an example of foundational disagreement in counterterrorism policy
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This 2007 article (based around an invited conference talk at Wayne State in early 2007) addresses risk assessment and cost benefit analysis as mechanisms in counterterrorism policy. It argues that although policy is often best pursued by agreeing to set aside deep foundational differences, in order to obtain a strategic plan for an activity such as counterterrorism, foundational differences must be addressed in order that policy not merely devolve into a policy minimalism that is always and damagingly tactical, never strategic, in order to avoid domestic democratic political conflict. The article takes risk assessment in counterterrorism, using cost benefit analysis, as an example of a foundational disagreement that cannot easily be elided. Examining an extreme, indeed crude, recent example of cost benefit analysis applied to the risks of terror and the costs of counterterrorism - John Mueller's widely noticed Overblown - the article suggests that cost benefit analysis, at least applied in this way, runs roughshod over other important values in counterterrorism policy, such as justice, but in addition, makes radical yet unstated assumptions about what cost benefit analysis seeks to compare in establishing counterterrorism policy or estimating the risks and costs of terrorism - unstated assumptions that, in fact, assume the conclusion. The article notes that cost benefit analysis tends to promote a policy-minimalizing "event specific catastrophism" - seeking above all to prevent simply the next, serial terrorist attack, with however no greater strategic vision. Indeed, the article says in conclusion (as Philip Bobbitt has noted) cost benefit analysis is "relentlessly tactical," not strategic; it also tends toward serial 'event specific catastrophism' as its analytic frame; and it is a method of evaluating proposed courses of action, not generating them, and hence promotes a strategically questionable tendency to reaction as a response to terrorism. This article presents these ideas in brief fashion, however, as the first draft in a larger project on cost benefit analysis and counterterrorism, and it does so by reference to a book that is unabashedly crude in its approach to both cost benefit analysis and terrorism/counterterrorism. The critical project will extend beyond this particular article, which is in effective a a first pass at developing a critique. It is also an article that does not extend beyond events of early 2007 (when the original address was given) and should be read in that light.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Philosophical Problems in Cost–Benefit Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):163-183.
Matthew D. Adler & Eric A. Posner (eds.) (2001). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives. University of Chicago Press.
Cristiano Castelfranchi & Fabio Paglieri (2011). Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation. Argument and Computation 1 (1):71-91.
Shepley W. Orr (2007). Values, Preferences, and the Citizen-Consumer Distinction in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):107-130.
Donald C. Hubin (1993). Book Review:Thoughtful Economic Man: Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence. Gay Meeks. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (3):572-.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (1982). Economics, Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Linearity Assumption. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:217 - 232.
Simon Glynn (1996). Ethical Issues in Environmental Decision Making and the Limitations of Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA). Ethics and the Environment 1 (1):27 - 39.
Peter Railton (1982). Costs and Benefits of Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Response to Bantz and MacLean. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:261 - 271.
Donald C. Hubin (1994). The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 10 (02):169-.
Kristin Shrader‐Frechette (1992). Science, Democracy, and Public Policy. Critical Review 6 (2-3):255-264.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #206,773 of 1,102,758 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,758 )
How can I increase my downloads?