Risk, fear, blame, shame and the regulation of public safety

Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):409-427 (2006)
Abstract
The question of when people may impose risks on each other is of fundamental moral importance. Forms of “quantified risk assessment,” especially risk cost-benefit analysis, provide one powerful approach to providing a systematic answer. It is also well known that such techniques can show that existing resources could be used more effectively to reduce risk overall. Thus it is often argued that some current practices are irrational. On the other hand critics of quantified risk assessment argue that it cannot adequately capture all relevant features, such as “societal concern” and so should be abandoned. In this paper I argue that current forms of quantified risk assessment are inadequate, and in themselves, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that current practices are irrational. In particular, I will argue that insufficient attention has been given to the cause of a hazard, which needs to be treated as a primary variable in its own right. However rather than reject quantified risk assessment I wish to supplement it by proposing a framework to make explicit the role causation plays in the understanding of risk, and how it interacts with factors which influence perception of risks and other attitudes to risk control. Once an improved description of risk perception is available it will become possible to have a more informed debate about the normative question: how safety should be regulated
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0266267106001040
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,122
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship.Céline Kermisch - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):91-102.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Safety, Risk Acceptability, and Morality.James A. E. Macpherson - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):377-390.
Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship.Céline Kermisch - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):91-102.
Valuing Risk: The Ethical Review of Clinical Trial Safety.Jonathan Kimmelman - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369-393.
Some Public Policy Problems with the Science of Carcinogen Risk Assessment.Carl F. Cranor - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:467 - 488.
The Ethics of Truth-Telling and the Problem of Risk.Paul B. Thompson - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):489-510.
Varieties of Risk Representations.John Kadvany - 1997 - Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.
Quantification, Regulation, and Risk Assessment.Douglas MacLean - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:243 - 260.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
55 ( #97,826 of 2,191,265 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #291,146 of 2,191,265 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature