Literature DB >> 17874210

The acceptability and the tolerability of societal risks: a capabilities-based approach.

Colleen Murphy1, Paolo Gardoni.   

Abstract

In this paper, we present a Capabilities-based Approach to the acceptability and the tolerability of risks posed by natural and man-made hazards. We argue that judgments about the acceptability and/or tolerability of such risks should be based on an evaluation of the likely societal impact of potential hazards, defined in terms of the expected changes in the capabilities of individuals. Capabilities refer to the functionings, or valuable doings and beings, individuals are able to achieve given available personal, material, and social resources. The likely impact of a hazard on individuals' capabilities should, we argue, be compared against two separate thresholds. The first threshold specifies the minimum level of capabilities attainment that is acceptable in principle for individuals to have in the aftermath of a hazard over any period of time. This threshold captures the level that individuals' capabilities ideally should not fall below. A risk is acceptable if the probability that the attained capabilities will be less than the acceptable level is sufficiently small. In practice, it can be tolerable for some individuals to temporarily fall below the acceptable threshold, provided this situation of lower capabilities attainment is temporary, reversible, and the probability that capabilities will fall below a tolerability threshold is sufficiently small. This second, tolerable threshold delimits an absolute minimum level of capabilities attainment below which no individual in a society should ever fall, regardless of whether that level of capabilities attainment is temporary or reversible. In this paper, we describe and justify this Capabilities-based Approach to the acceptability and tolerability of risks. We argue that the proposed theoretical framework avoids the limitations in current approaches to acceptable risk. The proposed approach focuses the attention of risk analysts directly on what should be our primary concern when judging the acceptability and the tolerability of risks, namely, how risks impact the well-being of individuals in a society. Also, our Capabilities-based Approach offers a transparent, easily communicable way for determining the acceptability and the tolerability of risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17874210     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9031-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  6 in total

1.  Classification and moral evaluation of uncertainties in engineering modeling.

Authors:  Colleen Murphy; Paolo Gardoni; Charles E Harris
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Full range of population Eliciting Dose values for 14 priority allergenic foods and recommendations for use in risk characterization.

Authors:  Geert F Houben; Joseph L Baumert; W Marty Blom; Astrid G Kruizinga; Marie Y Meima; Benjamin C Remington; Matthew W Wheeler; Joost Westerhout; Steve L Taylor
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2020-11-07       Impact factor: 6.023

3.  Fisher-Level Decision Making to Participate in Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs) for Yellowfin Tuna in the Philippines.

Authors:  Frazen Tolentino-Zondervan; Paul Berentsen; Simon R Bush; Larry Digal; Alfons Oude Lansink
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Applications of the Capability Approach in the Health Field: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Paul Mark Mitchell; Tracy E Roberts; Pelham M Barton; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Soc Indic Res       Date:  2016-05-10

5.  Dominating Risk Impositions.

Authors:  Kritika Maheshwari; Sven Nyholm
Journal:  J Ethics       Date:  2022-10-11

6.  Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies' impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies.

Authors:  Johane Patenaude; Georges-Auguste Legault; Jacques Beauvais; Louise Bernier; Jean-Pierre Béland; Patrick Boissy; Vanessa Chenel; Charles-Étienne Daniel; Jonathan Genest; Marie-Sol Poirier; Danielle Tapin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.525

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.