David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (1):77-92 (2008)
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.
|Keywords||Acceptable risk Tolerable risk Risk analysis Capabilities-based approach Society Cost-benefit analysis|
|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
Martha Nussbaum (2001). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Amartya Sen (2004). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (4):315 - 356.
Martha C. Nussbaum (2000). Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan. Ethics 111 (1):102-140.
Amartya Sen (1996). On the Status of Equality. Political Theory 24 (3):394-400.
Elizabeth Anderson (1988). Review: Values, Risks, and Market Norms. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Public Affairs 17 (1):54 - 65.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Coeckelbergh (2011). Human Development or Human Enhancement? A Methodological Reflection on Capabilities and the Evaluation of Information Technologies. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):81-92.
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2011). Evaluating the Source of the Risks Associated with Natural Events. Res Publica 17 (2):125-140.
Colleen Murphy, Paolo Gardoni & Charles Harris (2011). Classification and Moral Evaluation of Uncertainties in Engineering Modeling. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):553-570.
Johane Patenaude, Georges-Auguste Legault, Jacques Beauvais, Louise Bernier, Jean-Pierre Béland, Patrick Boissy, Vanessa Chenel, Charles-Étienne Daniel, Jonathan Genest, Marie-Sol Poirier & Danielle Tapin (2015). Framework for the Analysis of Nanotechnologies’ Impacts and Ethical Acceptability: Basis of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Assessing Novel Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):293-315.
Similar books and articles
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #109,526 of 1,725,579 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #134,647 of 1,725,579 )
How can I increase my downloads?