Department of Philosophy

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/56

Browse

Browsing Department of Philosophy by Author "Bijloos, Annemarie Dorothee"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ethics and risk. Toward a responsible approach to acceptable risk impositions
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2017-12) Bijloos, Annemarie Dorothee; Van Niekerk, Anton A.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy.
    ENGLISH SUMMARY: This research deals with the ethical evaluation of risk impositions, i.e. actions that expose other human beings to risk. When – under what circumstances or conditions – is it acceptable to perform an action that exposes others to risk? The research attends to this question in three parts. The first part of the research explores the notion of risk and its relevance for normative philosophy. The history of the term risk is discussed, as well as its relation to ethical concepts such as agency, knowledge, harm, safety, blame, trust, and responsibility. The second part of the research investigates how four branches of mainstream ethical theory – utilitarianism, deontology, rights-based ethics, and contractualism – individually evaluate risk impositions. These theories of right action bring to the fore several ethical considerations that influence the acceptability of risk impositions: the likeliness and severity of harm; the likeliness and extent of benefit; the obligation not to harm without good reason; rights not to be harmed without good reason; compensation for suffered harm; consent to risk exposure; distribution of risks and benefits; knowledge about consequences and victims; relations between cause and effect; and power relations between risk-imposing agents and risk-bearers. A multitude of these considerations can determine the acceptability of a particular risk imposition, depending on the context in which the risk is imposed. Quality judgement is indispensable, for a risk-imposing agent must judge which considerations are most important in the given situation, to what extent they matter, and whether they justify the risk imposition. An honest and adequate evaluation of risk impositions then has to take all mentioned considerations into account, and be attentive to the motives, character, and judgement of agents. However, the traditional normative approaches fail to provide such a holistic evaluation, as they tend to focus solely on several considerations, and lack attention to the context in which risks are imposed. The third and last part of the research therefore develops an alternative approach to the evaluation of risk impositions, which combines theories of action with theories of virtue. The proposed alternative interprets the notion of responsibility in virtue-ethical terms, i.e. as the virtue of answerability. It argues that the acceptability of risk impositions is directly correlated to the extent to which a risk-imposing agent is answerable for her actions. It argues that answerability has to be understood conversationally, as a call-and-response process between risk-imposing agent and riskbearer. And it argues that a risk-imposing agent should aim to be answerable, and can take responsibility, for her actions in three ways: by providing reasons for acting, by responding in a practically adequate way to risked or actual harm, and by responding in an attitudinally appropriate way to risked or actual harm.