Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Defending the Conception of ‘Objective Risk’
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
2011 (English)In: Risk Analysis, ISSN 0272-4332, E-ISSN 1539-6924, Vol. 32, no 1, 16-24 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The notion of objective risk is frequently discussed within the risk literature. While some argue that risk analysis measures objective risk, others claim that there are no real, objective risksonly subjective descriptions of them. Objectivity in these discussions often presupposes value-free, dispassionate, and impartial analysis. Feminist epistemology offers a different interpretation of objectivity that is more context-bound. It is argued that even though every risk can be described in several different ways, and does involve value judgments and emotions, the objectivity ideal should not be abandoned.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 32, no 1, 16-24 p.
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-7777DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01682.xISI: 000298742500005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-7777DiVA: diva2:12903
Note
Updated from manuscript to article in journal. QC 20120217Available from: 2007-12-10 Created: 2007-12-10 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Rights at Risk: Ethical Issues in Risk Management
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Rights at Risk: Ethical Issues in Risk Management
2007 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

he subject of this thesis is ethical aspects of decision-making concerning social risks. It is argued that a model for risk management must acknowledge several ethical aspects and, most crucial among these, the individual’s right not to be unfairly exposed to risks.

Article I takes as its starting point the demand frequently expressed in the risk literature for consistent risk management. It is maintained that a model focusing on cost-benefit analysis does not respect the rights of the individual. Two alternative models are outlined. They evolve around the separateness of individuals, rights, and fair risk taking. It is claimed that a model that focuses on a fair procedure for risk decisions seems most fruitful to develop.

Article II discusses the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) conflict. The ethical premises behind the negative characterization of the NIMBY concept are investigated. It is argued that a collective weighing of risks and benefits ignores individuals’ rights not to be unfairly exposed to risks in siting scenarios.

Article III presents a three-party model tool for ethical risk analysis. The focus in such analysis is a discussion of three parties that are involved in risk decisions: the risk-exposed, the beneficiary, and the decision-maker. Seven crucial ethical questions are discerned by combining these parties pairwise.

Article IV discusses a model for procedural justice for risk decisions. Two theories of deliberative democracy are explored. The first focuses on a hypothetical contract, the second argues for the actual inclusion of affected parties. It is maintained that hypothetical reasoning should mainly serve as a guide concerning risk issues that affect people who cannot be included in the decision-making process. Otherwise an interactive dialogical reasoning is to be preferred.

Article V explores the claim that there are no real, objective risks – only subjective descriptions of them. It is argued that even though every risk can be described in different ways, involve value judgements and emotions, the ideal of objectivity should not be abandoned.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2007. viii, 22 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 25
Keyword
Risk, risk management, consistency, ethics, rights, cost-benefit, interpersonal weighing
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-4570 (URN)978-91-7178-810-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2007-12-17, Sal D3, KTH, Lindstedtsvägen 5, Stockholm, 13:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20100714Available from: 2007-12-10 Created: 2007-12-10 Last updated: 2010-07-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hermansson, Hélène
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Risk Analysis
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf