Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Better safe than sorry:: Applying philosophical methods to the debate on risk and the precautionary principle
KTH, Superseded Departments, Infrastructure.
2004 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

The purpose of the present thesis is to apply philosophical methods to the ongoing debate of the precautionary principle, in order to illuminate this debate. The thesis consists of an Introduction and five papers. Paper I con-cerns an objection to the method of conceptual analysis, the Charge from Psychology. After a brief characterisation of conceptual analysis, I argue that the Charge from Psychology is misdirected. In Paper II, the method of conceptual analysis is applied to the concept of precaution which is ana-lysed in terms of precautionary actions. The purpose is explicatory. A definition involving three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions is proposed, and the implications of this analysis for the debate on the pre-cautionary principle are discussed. Paper III attempts to provide an ana-lytical apparatus which may be used for finding improved formulations of the precautionary principle. The approach is lexicographical. Several exist-ing and possible formulations of the precautionary principle are examined, and four common elements and a common structure of the precautionary principle are identified. It is suggested that the analytical apparatus pre-sented can be used in negotiations of the precautionary principle. Paper IV questions the soundness of some arguments against the precautionary prin-ciple. Five common arguments are discussed and rejected. In Paper V, two of these arguments are further discussed. I argue that an attempt at rejec-tion of the precautionary principle delivered by John Harris and Søren Holm is unwarranted, because their arguments against it are based on in-terpretations of the precautionary principle that ignore context. Paper VI deals with the idea of de minimis risk. After a discussion of the distinction between disregarding a risk and accepting it, I examine one way of deter-mining how small a risk ought to be in order to be disregarded, namely the use of natural risk levels as benchmarks. I argue that this approach fails, even if the distinction between what is natural and what is not natural can be upheld.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Infrastruktur , 2004. , vii, 27 p.
Theses in Risk and Safety from the Division of Philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1654-627X ; 5
Keyword [en]
Philosophy, conceptual analysis, precautionary pronciple, precaution, risk, risk management
Keyword [sv]
National Category
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-90ISBN: 91-7283-907-4OAI: diva2:14890
Public defence
2004-12-17, kollegiesalen, Valhallavägen 79, Stockholm, 10:15
Available from: 2004-12-17 Created: 2004-12-17 Last updated: 2012-03-21

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(301 kB)1104 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 301 kBChecksum SHA-1
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sandin, Per
By organisation

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 1104 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 935 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link