1 / 27

Different Perspectives on Risk Perception

Different Perspectives on Risk Perception. Carl Cranor Department of Philosophy University of California Riverside, CA. Different Perspectives on Risk Perception.

lucie
Télécharger la présentation

Different Perspectives on Risk Perception

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Different Perspectives on Risk Perception Carl Cranor Department of Philosophy University of California Riverside, CA

  2. Different Perspectives on Risk Perception “It is dangerous to have two cultures which can’t or don’t communicate. In a time when science is determining much of our destiny, that is, whether we live or die, it is dangerous in the most practical terms. Scientists can give bad advice and decision-makers can’t know whether it is good or bad.” C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and a Second Look

  3. Overview Generic normative considerations bearing on the personal acceptability of risks suggest: The acceptability of risks can be much different than the probability and magnitude of the risks suggests. Suggests some problems with certain arguments about acceptable risks. Communicating about the acceptability of risks is much more complex than technical experts often suggest.

  4. I. Preliminary Definitions and Distinctions A. Risk--A risk is the probability of a harm or untoward event (but who is the creator and who is the recipient(s) of the risk--distributive considerations?)

  5. I. Preliminary Definitions and Distinctions B. Distinguish between "taking a risk" or "risk-taking” or being a “risk taker”, and "being exposed to a risk" or "risk-exposure” or being a “risk bearer”. One can be at risk, e.g., of contracting cancer, without taking a risk, e.g., of contracting cancer, or be at risk of being hit by a car without taking a risk of being hit by a car.

  6. I. Preliminary Definitions and Distinctions C. The risk-bearer is the unit of analysis: what generic reasons do risk-bearers have for finding risks personally acceptable or unacceptable? Think about risks from the agent’s point of view, without reference to moral considerations, although these ultimately will be important.

  7. II. Generic Normative Considerations A. The magnitude of both benefits and harms is a consideration in assessing the acceptability of risks. B. The probability of both the harms and benefits is also a consideration in assessing the acceptability of risks, if probabilities can be assigned.

  8. II. Generic Normative Considerations B. The probability of both the harms and benefits, if probabilities can be assigned. 1. Typically, with respect to chemical substances there is an asymmetry between the probability of realizing the benefits and the probability of harms. The benefits are highly probable or certain (but how valuable and to whom?); any potential harms are low probability.

  9. II. Generic Normative Considerations B. The probability of both the harms and benefits 2. Acquiring the relevant scientific information about harmful effects of chemical substances is difficult. Long-latency periods, obscure causal mechanisms, causal over-determination, lack of "signature" effects, subtlety of effect, inter alia, all increase the difficulties of acquiring the adverse effect data.

  10. II. Generic Normative Considerations Cautionary Note: Even if we restrict ourselves to probabilities and magnitudes of benefits and harms from a technology, we should probably have considerable humility concerning its benefits, harms and associated probabilities because there is often doubt about how well we understand it. The acceptability of risks is much more complicated than a mere focus on magnitudes and probabilities that technical experts sometimes suggests.

  11. II. Generic Normative Considerations C. Source of the risk--naturally vs. humanly caused 1. Naturally caused risks pose one set of problems--how bad; how can we protect ourselves? 2. Humanly caused risks pose additional problems. What is the necessity and desirability of the activity in question, or doing as it currently done? Are there good reasons for persons to bear such risks? Other ways to arrange the activity?

  12. II. Generic Normative Considerations D. Relation of risks and benefits to a person's life 1. Peripheral vs. Central--One’s life plan is important here, compare: the risks and benefits from being a rock-climber, scuba diver, lifeguard or stuntman that are embraced vs. the risks and benefits from being exposed to earthquakes, exploding volcanoes, unknown chemical substances in drinking water.

  13. II. Generic Normative Considerations D. Relation of risks and benefits to a person's life 2. Issues: Is the risk-bearer a significant contributor to the risk being borne, e.g., rock-climbing, or a significant beneficiary of it? Or not?

  14. II. Generic Normative Considerations E. Degree of full voluntariness of risk-exposure? 1. Epistemic considerations--the transparency/ awareness/appreciation of the risks, e.g. operating dangerous equipment v. drinking undetectable toxicants. 2. Extent of personal avoidability of risks (What are the options for avoiding risk-exposure?) 3. Personal costs of avoiding the risk-exposure--How personally costly are the options to avoid the risk exposure? 4. Has the person chosen the risk exposure?

  15. II. Generic Normative Considerations F. Extent to which the risk-bearer has participated in decisions that led to risk-creation and risk-exposure. In part this is a matter of self protection; in part a matter of authorization. Volenti non fit inuria-- “To he or she who consents no injustice can be done.”

  16. II. Generic Normative Considerations G. Degree of continuing control over the risk materializing? Distinguish between voluntary exposure to a risk and continuing control over whether it materializes or not, e.g., studying exploding volcanoes v. running a chainsaw (a skill activity). Bears on the extent to which one might protect oneself, on our prospective burdens to prevent harm, and on retrospective fault and accountability judgments when risks materialize into harm.

  17. II. Generic Normative Considerations H. The reliability of the trustee and degree of confidence in trustee’s assessment and control of risks How reliable and legitimate a trustee’s actions are to protect someone against the risks in question is critical for the ultimate acceptability of risks under a trustee’s jurisdiction (2d order acceptability considerations). If one’s protection from risks rests with a trustee, the acceptability of the risks regulated by the trustee will depend upon the trustee’s reliability and legitimacy.

  18. III. Summary Issues for Disease-Threatening Pollutants in Drinking Water The pollutants pose humanly created risks, if they have serious adverse effects. No obvious welfare, personal project, experiential, expertise, or morally rewarding benefits to persons drinking the water from having the pollutants in it. The risk-creator is not the risk-bearer--the environment or third parties are. There is little or no voluntary choice in being exposed to drinking water pollutants.

  19. III. Summary Issues for Disease-Threatening Pollutants in Drinking Water They are epistemically undetectable--no or little awareness, palpability, appreciation/comprehension of the risks. They are difficult to avoid. There is little or no public participation in decisions to permit pollutants in the water. No personal continuing control over risk-exposure and none over the risks materializing.

  20. III. Summary Issues for Disease-Threatening Pollutants in Drinking Water Thus, any risks from pollutants and toxicants appear to be comparatively unacceptable when considered against many of the ordinary risks of life. They have a number of special properties that distinguish them from many other risks.

  21. III. Summary Issues for Disease-Threatening Pollutants in Drinking Water Without most of the features that enhance the personal acceptability of risk-exposure and risk-taking, this puts a tremendous burden on any agency that is a trustee for the public on these matters to ensure that if risks remain they are personally and morally acceptable.

  22. IV. Extensions of the View Other issues Shows what is wrong with certain arguments Failure to distinguish quite different risks, e.g., the “chloroform argument”--risks from chloroform in water set a standard for other risks. It is illegitimate to compare the acceptability of other risks with risks posed by chlorinated drinking water because there are such important benefits from chlorination.

  23. IV. Extensions of the View Other issues Shows the need to compare normatively similar risks and distinguish normatively different risks, not just their probability and magnitude, e.g, don’t compare risks from driving a car with risks from pollutants, or risks from chlorinated water with pollutants. These are considerations much beyond the mere probability and magnitude of the risks.

  24. IV. Extensions of the View Articulates well with Paul Slovic’s survey work on people’s assessments of acceptable and unacceptable risks. Controllable v. not controllable Merely injurious v. fatal Equitable v. not equitable Low v. high risk to future generations Easily v. not easily reduced Voluntary v. involuntary Affects v. does not affect me Dreaded v. not dreaded

  25. IV. Extensions of the View Articulates well with Paul Slovic’s survey work people’s assessments of acceptable and unacceptable risks. Epistemic considerations: Observable v. not observable Unknown v. known to those exposed Effect delayed v. immediate New risk v. old risk Risk known v. not known to science (Slovic, “Perception of Risk, 1987)

  26. IV. Extensions of the View “[T]here is wisdom as well as error in public attitudes and perceptions. Laypeople sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic conceptualization of risk is much richer than that of the experts and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. . . .[R]isk communication and risk management efforts are destined to fail unless they are structured as a two-way process. Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute.”(Slovic, “Perception of Risk, 1987)

  27. IV. Extensions of the View Addresses some risk communication issues that corresponds reasonably well with what risk communication experts recommend.

More Related