Varieties of Risk

风险的概念在经济学、金融学、健康、心理学、法律和其他领域中扮演着核心角色，在日常生活中管理挑战和资源时也很普遍。几乎所有关于风险的现有文献都理所当然地认为，存在一个且只有一个合理的风险概念：概率概念，在概率概念上，事件或事态的风险等同于其概率。这个研究项目的主要目的是挑战这种风险的一元论观点，并提供一个哲学框架的多元化的角度来看，有多个，同样合法的，风险的概念。然后，这个新的框架将被应用于心理学，刑法，户外运动和风险管理中出现的风险的关键问题。我们通过借鉴哲学中关于多元主义的其他长期争论来发展风险多元主义，例如关于真理，价值，规范或逻辑后果的多元主义。我们认为，风险多元主义不仅提供了一个充分的风险判断理论，而且它是正确的规范理论。我们对风险多元主义的辩护将与当前关于哲学方法论和认识论合理性的争论联系起来。心理学人们普遍认为，人们倾向于做出的风险判断并不总是与概率论所预测的正确性相一致。在至少可以追溯到20世纪70年代的研究中，心理学家已经确定了人们的直觉判断系统地偏离概率论预测的一系列方式。这些结果被用来揭示指导我们判断的逻辑和偏见。风险的多元解释开辟了一个新的方式来解释这些发现：风险判断，偏离概率帐户可以被重新定义为跟踪风险的非概率概念。刑事诉讼程序的许多规则都是为了最大限度地减少无辜者被定罪的风险。特别是，刑事审判的高标准证据-排除合理怀疑-旨在确保错误定罪的风险非常低。然而，正如许多理论家所观察到的那样，刑事审判过程的许多特征很难与风险的概率解释相吻合。我们认为，引入某些非概率的风险概念，使我们能够更好地说明法律的实践的现实。我们还将调查刑事审判中风险数字的其他方式，例如在关于保释或拘留的审前决定中，鲁莽的定义或关于假释的决定。户外运动户外运动和所谓的“极限”运动，如登山，跳伞或越野滑雪，涉及增加的死亡率，这也影响了这些活动中最有能力的从业者。在最近的研究中，已经发现了许多“事故陷阱”和偏见，这些陷阱和偏见可能导致从业人员误判所涉及的危险，而事故的内在性质反过来又可能导致非从业人员高估此类活动的危险。一个多元化的风险帐户可以帮助解释这种广泛的分歧，在风险判断表明，一些这样的判断是响应一个非概率的概念risk.Risk ManagementThe广泛的做法，微量风险管理涉及忽视某些低风险的可能性，而受到中度和高风险的可能性进行全面的风险分析。如果风险是以概率的方式来理解的，那么这种做法就不能被证明是正确的，而正是基于这些理由，这种做法受到了批评。我们将确定这种做法相对于风险的非概率概念是否合法。

The notion of risk plays a central role in economics, finance, health, psychology, law and elsewhere-and is prevalent in managing challenges and resources in day-to-day life. Almost all of the existing literature on risk takes it for granted that there is one and only one legitimate notion of risk: the probabilistic notion on which the risk of an event or state of affairs is equated with its probability. The primary aim of this research project is to challenge this monist view of risk and provide a philosophical framework for a pluralist perspective, on which there are multiple, equally legitimate, notions of risk. This new framework will then be applied to crucial questions about risk that arise in psychology, criminal law, outdoor sports, and risk management. PhilosophyWe develop risk pluralism by drawing on other long-standing debates about pluralism in philosophy, for example, pluralism about truth, value, norms, or logical consequence. We argue that risk pluralism offers not merely a descriptively adequate theory of risk judgments, but also that it is the correct normative theory. Our defence of risk pluralism will tie in with current debates about philosophical methodology and epistemic rationality.PsychologyIt is widely acknowledged that risk judgments that people are inclined to make don't always align with what the probabilistic account would predict to be correct. In research dating back to at least the 1970s psychologists have identified a range of ways in which people's intuitive judgments systematically deviate from the predictions of the probabilistic account. These results have been taken to reveal heuristics and biases which guide our judgments. A pluralist account of risk opens up a new way of interpreting these findings: risk judgments which diverge from the probabilistic account could be reconceived as tracking non-probabilistic notions of risk. Criminal LawMany of the rules of criminal procedure are designed to minimise the risk of convicting an innocent person. In particular, the high standard of proof for criminal trials-beyond reasonable doubt-is designed to ensure that the risk of mistaken convictions is very low. And yet, as a number of theorists have observed, many features of the criminal trial process are difficult to square with a probabilistic account of risk. We argue that introducing certain non-probabilistic notions of risk enables us to better account for the realities of legal practice. We will also investigate other ways in which risk figures in criminal trials, e.g. in pre-trial decision about bail or detention, definitions of recklessness, or decisions about parole.Outdoor sportOutdoor sports and so-called "extreme" sports, such as mountaineering, base-jumping, or off-piste skiing, involve an increased fatality rate which also affects the most competent practitioners in these activities. In recent studies, numerous "heuristics traps" and biases have been identified that can lead practitioners to misjudge the dangers involved, while the visceral nature of an accident can, in turn, lead non-practitioners to overestimate the dangers of such activities. A pluralist account of risk can help to explain such widespread disagreement in risk judgments by showing that some such judgments are responding to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.Risk ManagementThe widespread practice of de minimis risk management involves disregarding certain low risk possibilities, while subjecting moderate and high-risk possibilities to a comprehensive risk analysis. If risk is understood in probabilistic terms, this practice cannot be justified-and it has been criticised on precisely these grounds. We will determine whether the practice may be legitimate relative to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.