The Acceptability and the Tolerability of Societal Risks: A Capabilities-based Approach
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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 Capabilitiesbased Approach to the acceptability and tolerability of risks. We argue that the proposed theoretical framework avoids the limitations in current approaches to..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2008). The Acceptability and the Tolerability of Societal Risks: A Capabilities-Based Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (1):77-92.
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2007). Determining Public Policy and Resource Allocation Priorities for Mitigating Natural Hazards: A Capabilities-Based Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):489-504.
C. Murphy & P. Gardoni (2008). Recovery From Natural and Man-Made Disasters As Capabilities Restoration and Enhancement. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3 (4):1-17.
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2010). Assessing Capability Instead of Achieved Functionings in Risk Analysis. Journal of Risk Research 13 (2):137-147.
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2010). Gauging the Societal Impacts of Natural Disasters Using a Capability Approach. Disasters 34 (3):619-636.
Elizabeth Cripps (2010). Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems? [REVIEW] Res Publica 16 (1):1-22.
Alexander Bertland (2009). Virtue Ethics in Business and the Capabilities Approach. Journal of Business Ethics 84 (1):25 - 32.
Linda Barclay (2012). Natural Deficiency or Social Oppression? The Capabilities Approach to Justice for People with Disabilities. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):500-520.
Efrat Ram-Tiktin (2012). The Right to Health Care as a Right to Basic Human Functional Capabilities. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):337 - 351.
Ramona Ilea (2008). Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach and Nonhuman Animals: Theory and Public Policy. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (4):547-563.
Christopher P. Vogt (2005). Maximizing Human Potential: Capabilities Theory and the Professional Work Environment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):111 - 123.
Thom Ringer, Freedom in the Space of Equality: A Response to Certain Liberal Egalitarian Objections to Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach.
M. van Hees (2013). Rights, Goals, and Capabilities. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (3):247-259.
Added to index2010-09-25
Total downloads6 ( #292,147 of 1,696,619 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,146 of 1,696,619 )
How can I increase my downloads?