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
Moral Thinking and Radiation Protection
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2013 (English)In: Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management, Volume 19 (Radioactivity in the Environment), Elsevier, 2013, 33-51 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The practical applicability of ethical theories is regrettably limited in many areas of application, but in radiation protection it is quite high. This is because radiation protection operates with doses that are measured in numerical units. These numbers can be added up just like the utilities of utilitarianism, and they can be compared to exact limits in ways that conform with deontological ideas. The chapter identifies five contact points, or parallel issues, between moral philosophy and radiation protection. First, should we consider risks and benefits separately for each individual, or should we make one great sum for all effects, irrespective of who is affected by them? Secondly, should the acceptability of risks be determined by weighing against benefits or by the application of general limits for the size of the risks themselves? Thirdly, should all effects be considered, or should sufficiently small effects such as small risks and small radiation doses be left out of our moral deliberations? Fourthly, how should we value future effects? Fifthly and finally, how should individual differences be treated in an ethical discourse aiming at justice?

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2013. 33-51 p.
Series
Radioactivity in the Environment, ISSN 1569-4860 ; 19
Keyword [en]
Applied ethics, Benjamin Franklin, Collective dose, De minimis, Deontology, Discounting, Distributive justice, Equality, Exposure limits, Indetectable effects, Jeremy Bentham, Linear no-threshold model, NIMBY, Radiation dose standards, Radiation ethics, Radiation protection, Risk sensitive individuals, Utilitarianism
National Category
Environmental Sciences Ethics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-133387DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-045015-5.00003-4Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84883537545ISBN: 978-0-08-045015-5 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-133387DiVA: diva2:661939
Note

QC 20131105

Available from: 2013-11-05 Created: 2013-10-31 Last updated: 2013-11-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hansson, Sven Ove
By organisation
Philosophy
Environmental SciencesEthics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 95 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