Ethics and risk. Toward a responsible approach to acceptable risk impositions

Date
2017-12
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University
Abstract
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.
AFRIKAANS OPSOMMING: Hierdie navorsing handel oor die etiese beoordeling van risiko-imposisies, d.i. dade waarin ‘n agent ander mense aan risiko’s blootstel. Wanneer – onder watter omstandighede of voorwaardes – is dit aanvaarbaar om ‘n handeling uit te voer wat ander mense aan risiko’s blootstel? Die navorsing behandel hierdie vraag in drie dele. Die eerste deel van die navorsing ondersoek die begrip risiko en die relevansie daarvan vir normatiewe filosofie. Die geskiedenis van die begrip risiko word bespreek sowel as die verhouding tussen risiko en aanverwante morele begrippe soos agentskap, kennis, skade, veiligheid, blaam, vertroue en verantwoordelikheid. Die tweede deel van die navorsing ondersoek hoe vier hoofstroom tipes etiek-teorie – utilitarisme, deontologie, regte-gebaseerde etiek en sosiale kontrak-teorie – elk individueel risiko-imposisies moreel evalueer. Hierdie teorieë i.s. (moreel) regte optrede bring verskillende etiese oorwegings wat die aanvaarbaarheid van regte-imposisies beïnvloed, aan die lig: die waarskynlikheid en intensiteit van skade; die waarskynlikheid en omvang van bevoordeling; die obligasie om nie skade te berokken sonder goeie rede nie; regte wat nie geskend mag word sonder goeie rede nie; kompensasie vir skade wat gely is; toestemming vir risiko-blootstelling; die verspreiding van risiko-voordele; kennis van gevolge en van slagoffers; verhoudinge tussen oorsaak en gevolg; en magsverhoudinge tussen diegene wat mense aan risiko’s blootstel en diegene wat aan risiko’s blootgestel word self. 'n Veelheid van laasgenoemde oorwegings kan die aanvaarbaarheid van 'n spesifieke risiko-imposisie vasstel, afhangende van die konteks waarin die risiko sigself voordoen. Kwaliteit-oordeel is onontbeerlik, want diegene wat mense aan risiko’s blootstel moet oordeel watter oorwegings die belangrikste is in die gegewe situasie, in watter mate hulle van belang is, en of hulle die risiko-imposisie regverdig. 'n Eerlike en toereikende evaluering van risiko-imposisies moet al die genoemde oorwegings in ag neem, en let op die motiewe, karakter en oordeel van agente. Die tradisionele normatiewe benaderings bied egter nie so 'n holistiese evaluering aan nie, aangesien hulle geneig is om slegs op enkele oorwegings te fokus, en nie aandag te gee aan die konteks waarin risiko's opgelê word nie. Die derde en laaste deel van die navorsing ontwikkel daarom ‘n alternatiewe benadering tot die evaluering van risiko-imposisies – ‘n benadering wat teorieë i.s. regte handelinge met deugdeteorie kombineer. Hierdie voorgestelde alternatief interpreteer die begrip verantwoordelikheid in deugde-etiese terme, d.i. as die deug van verantwoordbaarheid. Dit argumenteer dat die aanvaarbaarheid van risiko-imposisies direk korreleer met die mate waarin die agent wat aan ander aan risiko’s blootstel, verantwoordbaar is vir haar aksies. Dit argumenteer dat verantwoordbaarheid in dialogiese terme verstaan moet word, as naamlik ‘n roep-en-respons proses tussen die agent wat die risiko laat gebeur en die een wat aan die risiko blootgestel is. Hierdie benadering argumenteer ook dat ‘n agent wat ander aan risiko’s blootstel daarna moet streef om vir sy/haar dade verantwoordelikheid te aanvaar op drieërlei maniere: deur redes vir optrede te verskaf, deur in ‘n praktiese sin toereikend te reageer op riskante of werklike skade, en deur op die vlak van houdings toereikend op riskante of werklike skade te reageer.
Description
Thesis (D.Phil)--Stellenbosch University, 2017.
Keywords
Risk imposition, Risk -- Philosophy, Risk perception, Risk -- Moral and ethical aspects, Human rights -- Risk assessment, Situation ethics, Responsibility, Virtue
Citation