The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards
- 16 December 2014
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Risk Analysis
- Vol. 35 (3), 354-360
- https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12293
Abstract
Many risk scholars recognize the importance of including ethical considerations in risk management. Risk ethics can provide in-depth ethical analysis so that ethical considerations can be part of risk-related decisions, rather than an afterthought to those decisions. In this article, I present a brief sketch of the field of risk ethics. I argue that risk ethics has a bias toward technological hazards, thereby overlooking the risks that stem from natural and semi-natural hazards. In order to make a contribution to the field of risk research, risks ethics should broaden its scope to include natural and semi-natural hazards and develop normative distribution criteria that can support decision making on such hazards.Keywords
Funding Information
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016-144-071)
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Rationality in flood risk management: the limitations of probabilistic risk assessment in the design and selection of flood protection strategiesJournal of Flood Risk Management, 2013
- Operations research and ethics: development trends 1966–2009International Transactions in Operational Research, 2010
- Contractualism and risk impositionPolitics, Philosophy & Economics, 2008
- On the Ethical Justification for the Use of Risk Acceptance CriteriaRisk Analysis, 2007
- Duties to Future Generations, Proxy Consent, Intra‐ and Intergenerational Equity: The Case of Nuclear WasteRisk Analysis, 2000
- Rights, Explanation, and RisksEthics, 1997
- Some Moral Issues in Risk AssessmentEthics, 1990
- Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy1,2Risk Analysis, 1982
- Discussion: Fallacy of the Single RiskPhilosophy of Science, 1966
- Philosophical CertaintyThe Philosophical Review, 1962