Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T10:20:54.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RISK, FEAR, BLAME, SHAME AND THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2006

JONATHAN WOLFF*
Affiliation:
University College London

Abstract

The question of when people may impose risks on each other is of fundamental moral importance. Forms of “quantified risk assessment,” especially risk cost-benefit analysis, provide one powerful approach to providing a systematic answer. It is also well known that such techniques can show that existing resources could be used more effectively to reduce risk overall. Thus it is often argued that some current practices are irrational. On the other hand critics of quantified risk assessment argue that it cannot adequately capture all relevant features, such as “societal concern” and so should be abandoned. In this paper I argue that current forms of quantified risk assessment are inadequate, and in themselves, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that current practices are irrational. In particular, I will argue that insufficient attention has been given to the cause of a hazard, which needs to be treated as a primary variable in its own right. However rather than reject quantified risk assessment I wish to supplement it by proposing a framework to make explicit the role causation plays in the understanding of risk, and how it interacts with factors which influence perception of risks and other attitudes to risk control. Once an improved description of risk perception is available it will become possible to have a more informed debate about the normative question: how safety should be regulated.

Type
Essay
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, J. 2001. Risk. RoutledgeGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baier, A. 1986. Poisoning the wells. In Values at Risk, ed. MacLean, D.. Rowman and Allenheld. 4974Google Scholar
Burgess-Jackson, K. 1994. Justice and the distribution of fear. Southern Journal of Philosophy 32: 367–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission for Integrated Transport. 2004. Rail safety: revision of Factsheet 10. URL=http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/railsafety/03.htmGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. W. 2005. Fatal train accidents on Britain's main line railways: end of 2004 analysis. URL=http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchActivities/publicationDetails.asp?PublicationID=465Google Scholar
Health and Safety Executive. 2001. Reducing risks protecting people. HSE Books. URL=http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.htmGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, A. 2004. Safety, culture and risk. CCH BooksGoogle Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. W. 1991. Altruism and the value of other people's safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4: 213–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. W. 1992. Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. Economic Journal 102: 8090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. et al. 1999. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2 – The CV/SG “chained” approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17: 187213Google Scholar
Lomborg, B. 2001. The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomborg, B. 2003. Paper given to Spiked conference: panic attack, London, 9 MayGoogle Scholar
Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., and Slovic, P. (eds.) 2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. 2004. Catastrophe, risk and response. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. C. 1984. The life you save may be your own. In his Choice and consequence, 113–46. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. EarthscanGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. 2002. Risk and reason. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Wolff, J. 2002. Railway safety and the ethics of the tolerability of risk. Rail Standards and Safety Board. URL=http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/railway safety and the ethics of the tolerability of risk.pdfGoogle Scholar