David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):231-241 (2006)
Mainstream risk analysis deviates in at least two important respects from the rationality ideal of mainstream economics. First, expected utility maximization is not applied in a consistent way. It is applied to endodoxastic uncertainty, i.e. the uncertainty (or risk) expressed in a risk assessment, but in many cases not to metadoxastic uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty about which of several competing assessments is correct. Instead, a common approach to metadoxastic uncertainty is to only take the most plausible assessment into account. This will typically lead to risk-prone deviations from risk-neutrality. Secondly, risks and benefits for different persons are added to form a total value of risk. Such calculations are used to support the view that one should accept being exposed to a risk if it brings greater benefits for others. This is in stark contrast to modern Paretian welfare economics, that refrains from interindividual comparisons and does not require people to accept a disadvantage because it brings a larger advantage for others. (Published Online July 11 2006).
|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
Stephen John (2010). In Defence of Bad Science and Irrational Policies: An Alternative Account of the Precautionary Principle. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):3 - 18.
Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Hypothetical Retrospection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2):145 - 157.
Colleen Murphy, Paolo Gardoni & Charles Harris (2011). Classification and Moral Evaluation of Uncertainties in Engineering Modeling. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):553-570.
Similar books and articles
Sven Ove Hansson (2003). Ethical Criteria of Risk Acceptance. Erkenntnis 59 (3):291 - 309.
Sven Ove Hansson (2004). Weighing Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23 (2):145-152.
Frank C. Krysiak (2009). Risk Management as a Tool for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (3):483 - 492.
Douglas MacLean (1982). Quantification, Regulation, and Risk Assessment. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:243 - 260.
Richard Watt, Francisco J. Vázquez & Ignacio Moreno (2001). An Experiment on Rational Insurance Decisions. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):247-296.
Andreas Lange (2001). A Note on Decisions Under Uncertainty: The Impact of the Choice of the Welfare Measure. Theory and Decision 51 (1):51-71.
Thomas Kenner & Karl P. Pfeiffer (1986). The Risk Concept in Medicine — Statistical and Epidemiological Aspects: A Case Report for Applied Mathematics in Cardiology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
John Kadvany (1997). Varieties of Risk Representations. Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads57 ( #75,244 of 1,907,511 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #341,955 of 1,907,511 )
How can I increase my downloads?