David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2):191-201 (1998)
The complexity of chromium chemistry makes it an ideal example of how the Principle of Expediency, first articulated by sanitary pioneer Earle Phelps, can be used in a standard setting. Expediency, defined by Phelps as “the attempt to reduce the numerical measure of probable harm, or the logical measure of existing hazard, to the lowest level that is practicable and feasible within the limitations of financial resources and engineering skill”, can take on negative connotations unless subject to ethical guidance. In this paper we argue that without ethical principles as a rubric for negotiating environmental regulations, communities run the risk of slipping from the Principle of Expediency as defined by Phelps to the alternative usage of expediency meaning that which does not reflect ethical consideration or concern beyond self-serving interest. Three ethical ideals—justice, mercy and humility—are suggested as values to be considered while resolving regulatory issues related to environmental protection. The Principle of Expediency serves as a working principle, but not as a rigid algorithm, for setting regulatory limits for environmental concentrations of waste products like chromium.
|Keywords||regulations chromium expediency ethics|
|Categories||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
P. Aarne Vesilind (1996). There is No Such Thing as Environmental Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):307-318.
Russell Powell (2010). What's the Harm? An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):181-206.
Donald A. Brown (1987). Ethics, Science and Environmental Regulation. Environmental Ethics 9 (4):331-349.
Geert van Calster (2008). Risk Regulation, EU Law and Emerging Technologies: Smother or Smooth? [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (1):61-71.
Troy W. Hartley (1995). Environmental Justice: An Environmental Civil Rights Value Acceptable to All World Views. Environmental Ethics 17 (3):277-289.
Nils Holtug (2001). The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.
Roman Altshuler (2009). Political Realism and Political Idealism: The Difference That Evil Makes. Public Reason 1 (2):73-87.
Burton St John (2008). Not Biting the Hand That Feeds Them: Hegemonic Expediency in the Newsroom and the Karen Ryan/Health and Human Services Department Video News Release. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 23 (2):110-125.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #118,269 of 1,099,716 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #301,057 of 1,099,716 )
How can I increase my downloads?