Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship

Science and Engineering Ethics - Tập 18 - Trang 91-102 - 2010
Céline Kermisch1
1Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherches Interdisciplinaires en Bioéthique (CP175/01), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

Tóm tắt

This paper analyses the nature of the relationship between risk and responsibility. Since neither the concept of risk nor the concept of responsibility has an unequivocal definition, it is obvious that there is no single interpretation of their relationship. After introducing the different meanings of responsibility used in this paper, we analyse four conceptions of risk. This allows us to make their link with responsibility explicit and to determine if a shift in the connection between risk and responsibility can be outlined. (1) In the engineer’s paradigm, the quantitative conception of risk does not include any concept of responsibility. Their relationship is indirect, the locus of responsibility being risk management. (2) In Mary Douglas’ cultural theory, risks are constructed through the responsibilities they engage. (3) Rayner and (4) Wolff go further by integrating forms of responsibility in the definition of risk itself. Analysis of these four frameworks shows that the concepts of risk and responsibility are increasingly intertwined. This tendency is reinforced by increasing public awareness and a call for the integration of a moral dimension in risk management. Therefore, we suggest that a form of virtue-responsibility should also be integrated in the concept of risk.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bourg, D., & Schlegel, J. L. (2001). Parer aux risques de demain. Paris: Le Seuil.

Douglas, M. (1979). Cultural bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute (Occasional paper No. 35).

Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

European Commission. (2000). First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures. http://ec.europa.eu.

Giddens, A. (1999). Risk and responsibility. The modern law review, 62(1), 1–10.

Hansson, S. (2004). Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techné, 8(1), 10–35.

Hansson, S. (2005). Risk ethics. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 1642–1645). Farmington Hills: Thompson Gale.

Hart, H. (2008, 1968 for the first edition). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D. (2005). Responsibility. Anglo-American perspectives. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 1616–1618). Farmington Hills: Thompson Gale.

Ladd, J. (1991). Bhopal: An essay on moral responsibility and civic virtue. Journal of Social Philosophy, 22(1), 73–91.

Lenk, H. (2007). A propos de risque et de responsabilité. In C. Kermisch & G. Hottois (Eds.), Techniques et philosophies des risques (pp. 21–56). Paris: Vrin.

Lenk, H., & Maring, M. (2001). Responsibility and technology. In A. Auhagen & H. Bierhoff (Eds.), Responsibility: The many faces of a social phenomenon. London: Routledge.

Lowrance, W. (1976). Of acceptable risk. Los Altos: Kaufmann.

National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Risk. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/risk.html.

Rayner, S. (1987). Learning from the blind men and the elephant, or seeing things whole in risk management. In V. Covello, et al. (Eds.), Uncertainty in risk assessment, risk management and decision making (pp. 207–212). New York: Plenum Press.

Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83–115). Westport: Praeger.

Rayner, S., & Cantor, R. (1987). How fair is safe enough? Risk Analysis, 7(1), 3–9.

Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Silbergeld, E. (1991). Risk assessment and risk management: An uneasy divorce. In D. Mayo & R. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence (pp. 9–28). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Starr, C., Rudman, R., & Whipple, C. (1976). Philosophical basis for risk analysis. Annual Review of Energy, 1, 629–662.

Stirling, A. (1998). Risk at a turning point? Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 97–109.

Thompson, P., & Dean, W. (1996). Competing conceptions of risk. Risk: Environment, Health, and Safety, 7, 361–384.

Van de Poel, I. (2010). The relation between forward-looking & backward-looking responsibility. In: N. Vincent, I. Van de Poel & J. Van den Hoven (Eds.), Moral responsibility. Beyond free will and determinism. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wolff, J. (2006). Risk, fear, blame, shame and the regulation of public safety. Economics and Philosophy, 22, 409–427.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Science and Engineering Ethics

Tập 18

91-102

Thông tin tác giả