SpringerLink
Log in

A Panorama of the Philosophy of Risk

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Risk Theory

Abstract

The role of philosophy in the development of the risk sciences has been rather limited. This is unfortunate since there are many problems in the analysis and management of risk that philosophers can contribute to solving. Several of the central terms, including “risk” itself, are still in need of terminological clarification. Much of the argumentation in risk issues is unclear and in need of argumentation analysis. There is also still a need to uncover implicit or “hidden” values in allegedly value-free risk assessments. Eight philosophical perspectives in risk theory are outlined: From the viewpoint of epistemology, risk issues have brought forth problems of trust in expertise and division of epistemological labor. In decision theory, the decision-maker’s degree of control over risks is often problematic and difficult to model. In the philosophy of probability, posterior revisions of risk estimates (in so-called hindsight bias) pose a challenge to the standard model of probabilistic reasoning. In the philosophy of science, issues of risk give us reason to investigate what influence the practical uses of knowledge can legitimately have on the scientific process. In the philosophy of technology, the nature of safety engineering principles and their relationship to risk assessment need to be investigated. In ethics, the most pressing problem is how standard ethical theories can be extended or adjusted to cope with the ethics of risk taking. In the philosophy of economics, the comparison and aggregation of risks falling to different persons give rise to new foundational problems for the theory of welfare. In political philosophy, issues such as trust and consent that have been discussed in connection with risk give us reason to reconsider central issues in the theory of democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 588.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 802.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahteensuu M (2008) In dubio pro natura? PhD thesis in philosophy, University of Turku

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn S (1973) Reason and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann G, Pirson J, Ehster S, Dominguez MT, Mansani L, Coe I, Moormann R, Van der Mheen W (2006) Important viewpoints proposed for a safety approach of HTGR reactors in Europe. Final results of the EC-funded HTR-L project. Nucl Eng Des 236:463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgos R, Defeo O (2004) Long-term population structure, mortality and modeling of a tropical multi-fleet fishery: the red grouper Epinephelus morio of the Campeche bank, Gulf of Mexico. Fish Res 66:325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson E (1995) Consequentialism reconsidered. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen J, Hansson SO, Nilsson F (2006) Generalizing the safety factor approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:964–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen BL (2003) Probabilistic risk analysis for a high-level radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 23:909–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet ([1793] 1847) Plan de Constitution, presenté a la convention nationale les 15 et 16 février 1793. Oeuvres 12:333–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox R, Winkler R (2010) Spill may prompt energy mergers. New York Times June 2, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/business/03views.html. Accessed 9 June 2011

  • Cranor CF (1997) The normative nature of risk assessment: features and possibilities. Risk Health Saf Environ 8:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranor CF, Nutting K (1990) Scientific and legal standards of statistical evidence in toxic tort and discrimination suits. Law Philos 9:115–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahoe FJ (1969) ‘Anomalous’ water. Nature 224:198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn N, Hansson SO (2011) Should safety factors replace probabilistic design? Philos Technol 24:151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Feleppa R (1981) Epistemic utility and theory acceptance: comments on Hempel. Synthese 46:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1977) Perceived informativeness of facts. Hum Percept Perform 3(2):349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Rev 5:5–15. Reprinted in her Virtues and Vices, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  • Handlin O, Handlin MF (1945) Origins of the American business corporation. J Econ Hist 5:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1993) The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1995) The detection level. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 22:103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1996) Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1998) Setting the limit: occupational health standards and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2002) Replacing the no effect level (NOEL) with bounded effect levels (OBEL and LEBEL). Stat Med 21:3071–3078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2003a) Are natural risks less dangerous than technological risks? Philos Nat 40:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2003b) Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59:291–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004a) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004b) Fallacies of risk. J Risk Res 7:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004c) Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techne 8(1):10–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004d) Great uncertainty about small things. Techne 8(2):26–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2005) Seven myths of risk. Risk Manage 7(2):7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2006a) Economic (ir)rationality in risk analysis. Econ Philos 22:231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2006b) How to define – a tutorial. Princípios, Revista de Filosofia 13(19–20):5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2007a) Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23:163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2007b) Values in pure and applied science. Found Sci 12:257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2008) Regulating BFRs – from science to policy. Chemosphere 73:144–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2009a) Should we protect the most sensitive people? J Radiol Prot 29:211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2009b) Measuring uncertainty. Studia Log 93:21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2010a) Promoting inherent safety. Process Saf Environ Prot 88:168–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2010b) Past probabilities. Notre Dame J Formal Logic 51:207–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO, Rudén C (2006) Evaluating the risk decision process. Toxicology 218:100–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare RM (1973) Rawls’s theory of justice. Am Philos Quart 23:144–155 and 241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1975) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality – critique of Rawls, J theory. Am Pol Sci Rev 69(2):594–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1983) Bayesian decision theory, subjective and objective probabilities, and acceptance of empirical hypotheses. Synthese 57:341–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayenhjelm M (2007) Trusting and taking risks: a philosophical inquiry. Ph.D. thesis, KTH, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel CG (1960) Inductive inconsistencies. Synthese 12:439–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2002) Risk management – vocabulary – guidelines for use in standards, ISO/IEC Guide 73/2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll F (1976) Commentary on the basic philosophy and recent development of safety margins. Can J Civ Eng 3:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krewski D, Goddard MJ, Murdoch D (1989) Statistical considerations in the interpretation of negative carcinogenicity data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 9:5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisenring W, Ryan L (1992) Statistical properties of the NOAEL. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 15:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi I (1962) On the seriousness of mistakes. Philos Sci 29:47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi I (1973) Gambling with truth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • London AJ (2001) Equipoise and international human-subjects research. Bioethics 15:312–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez RE, Holle RL (1998) Changes in the number of lightning deaths in the United States during the twentieth century. J Climate 11:2070–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean D (ed) (1985) Values at risk. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS ([1848] 1965) The principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. In: Robson JM (ed) Collected works of John Stuart Mill, vol 2–3. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller CO (1988) System safety. In: Wiener EL, Nagel DC (eds) Human factors in aviation. Academic, San Diego, pp 53–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller N, Hansson SO (2008) Principles of engineering safety: risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller N, Hansson SO, Peterson M (2006) Safety is more than the antonym of risk. J Appl Philos 23(4):419–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses F (1997) Problems and prospects of reliability-based optimisation. Eng Struct 19:293–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) (1994) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Cameron J, Jordan A (eds) (2001) Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasch RE (2004) Shifting risk: the divorce of risk from reward in American capitalism. J Econ Issues 38:405–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowicz W (2002) Does practical deliberation crowd out self-prediction? Erkenntnis 57:91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall FA (1976) The safety factor of structures in history. Prof Saf 1976(January):12–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser S (2006) The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Saf Sci 44:689–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society (1983) Risk assessment. Report of a Royal Society Study Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudén C, Hansson SO (2008) Evidence based toxicology – ‘sound science’ in new disguise. Int J Occup Environ Health 14:299–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:889–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons J (1987) Consent and fairness in planning land use. Bus Prof Ethics J 6(2):5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A ([1776] 1976) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. In: Campbell RH, Skinner AS, Todd WB (eds) The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith, vol 2. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W (1977) Where Luce and Krantz do really generalize Savage’s decision model. Erkenntnis 11:113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tench W (1985) Safety is no accident. Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JJ (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1:47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JJ (1985a) Imposing risk. In: Gibson M (ed) To breathe freely. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, pp 124–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson PB (1985b) Risking or being willing: Hamlet and the DC-10. J Value Inquiry 19:301–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1987) Informal fallacies: towards a theory of argument criticisms. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (1973) A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJC, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78 B, Stockholm, 100 44, Sweden

    Prof. Sven Ove Hansson

Authors
  1. Prof. Sven Ove Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Ove Hansson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  2. Philosophy Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  3. Human Technology Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Rafaela Hillerbrand

  4. Department of Plant Physiology and Forest Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Per Sandin

  5. Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Martin Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hansson, S.O. (2012). A Panorama of the Philosophy of Risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation