Normative Foundations in Risk Judgments

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Concern about exposures to toxic substances is part of our lives. This project, informed by appropriate scientific information, addresses this concern by developing a philosophic analysis of normative assumptions in risk judgments. The research focuses on the comparison between risks from toxic substances and those from other human activities and exposures. The discussion of risk comparisons has been dominated by the scientific and technical risk assessment community, with little input from philosophers. This discussion has been insensitive to some of the problems posed by special properties of toxic substances and some of the differences between them and ordinary risks in life. It has tended to overlook many features of the acceptability of risk exposures and to appeal to a particular paradigm, utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis, in assessing the acceptability of risks. The goal of this research is to identify a much broader and richer matrix of features of risk-taking and risk-exposure, that can be taken into consideration when assessing the acceptability of risk . The first research task is to articulate further some of the normative distinctions underlying the different risk judgments we make as individuals. These distinctions, which have begun to be developed in the risk perception and risk communication literature, include such factors as magnitude and probability of harm and benefit, numbers and distributions of people affected and voluntary or involuntary occurrence, whether the risks are appreciated or avoidable, and so on. The second task involves the systematization and assessment of these factors in light of non-consequentialist as well as utilitarian features in moral theories. The goal here is to broaden the understanding of relevant moral paradigms in understanding and evaluating risk judgments. The project will result in articles and presentations, and a book length monograph.