Skip to main content

Ethics and Risk

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Risk Theory

Abstract

Although risk is a fact of life, it was not extensively discussed in moral philosophy before the 1970s. Robert Nozick’s classic discussion of risk drew philosophical attention to the special problems created by actions that create risk but which may or may not result in any harm. This chapter begins with a description and analysis of Nozick’s argument. It concludes that familiar concepts in moral philosophy like harm, compensation, and individual moral rights cannot by themselves give a satisfactory analysis of the unique ethical problems created by activities that impose or attempt to regulate risk. This discussion leads to further examination of the relation between risk and consent. Appeals to consent are important in the justification of techniques of risk analysis used to reveal individual preferences for comparing risks, costs, and benefits in policy decisions. This discussion is followed by a review of issues involving justice and the distribution of risk. It focuses especially on some distributional issues that are unique to risk and reveal important differences between looking at the ethical dimensions of risk from an individual and from a societal perspective. The chapter concludes with some speculative remarks about future research into the ethics of risk that is prompted by increased awareness of risks imposed by new technologies, the prospect of reducing or mitigating the effects of anthropogenic climate change, and the increasingly likely prospect that decisions today may impose significant risks on future generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Broome J (1982) Equity in risk bearing. Oper Res 30:412–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (2008) The ethics of climate change. Scientific American, June 2008, pp 97–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (2011) The morality of climate change. WW Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase RM (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranor C (1997) A philosophy of risk assessment and the law: a case study of the role of philosophy in public policy. Philos Stud 85:135–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillroy J (2000) Justice and nature: Kantian philosophy, environmental policy, and the law. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1993) The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2003) Ethical criteria for risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59:291–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2007a) Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23:163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2007b) Risk and ethics: three approaches. In: Lewens T (ed) Risk: philosophical perspectives. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman D, McPherson M (2009) Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Econ Philos 25:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes T (1660/1996) Leviathan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty 19:203–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R (1980) Equity and public risk. Oper Res 28:527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman S (1981) Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. Regulation 5:33–40

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (1983) A moral requirement for energy policies. In: MacLean D, Brown P (eds) Energy and the future. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (1986a) Risk and consent: philosophical issues for centralized decisions. In: MacLean D (ed) Values at risk. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (1986b) Social values and the distribution of risk. In: MacLean D (ed) Values at risk. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, pp 75–93

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (2009) Ethics, reasons and risk analysis. In: Roeser S, Asveld L (eds) The ethics of technological risk. Earthscan, London, pp 115–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin S (1963) The social rate of discount and the optimal rate of investment. Q J Econ 77:95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1859/1978) On liberty. Hackett, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishan EJ (1971) Evaluation of life and limb: a theoretical approach. J Polit Econ 79:687–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and Utopia. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry S (2001) Risk, harm, and responsibility. In: Owens D (ed) Philosophical foundations of tort law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser S, Asvelt L (eds) (2009) The ethics of technological risk. Earthscan, London/Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff M (2004) Price, principle, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling T (1968/1984) The life you save may be your own. In: Chase S (ed) Problems in public expenditure analysis, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; reprinted in Schelling T, Choice and consequence: Perspectives of an errant economist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1980) Nuclear power and public policy: the social and ethical problems of fisson technology. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1990) Ethics and risk-benefit analysis. Ethical and policy issues perspectives 9:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick H (1904) The elements of politics, ch. 9, sec. 2. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(14–20):36–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2002) Risk and reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (1992) Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm. Viewed 12 June 2011

  • Viscusi WK (1992) Fatal tradeoffs: public and private responsibilities for risk. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas MacLean .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

MacLean, D. (2012). Ethics and Risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics