Abstract
I examine different forms of the Precautionary Principle (PP) to see if these are suitable, inter alia, for the regulation of new technologies. Weak versions of the PP may be suitable, but are not importantly different from Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Strong versions of the PP are importantly distinct from CBA but are not a suitable basis for regulation because they lead to paradoxical outcomes if applied consistently. I consider three different lines of response to the change of paradox and argue that all three are unsatisfactory. First, I argue against Sandin’s (2007) suggestion that we should be optimistic about finding a solution to the paradox on the grounds that the PP appears to be embodied in common sense reasoning. Second, I consider Weckert and Moor’s (2006) attempt to resolve the PP paradox by appealing to the distinction between positive, negative and intermediate duties. I argue that this does nothing to resolve the PP paradox in many crucial cases. Furthermore, even when it can be used to resolve the paradox, it does not provide a satisfactory resolution. Third, I argue that Gardiner’s (2006) attempt to recast the PP as a form of maximin is unsatisfactory because, although it resolves the PP paradox, it can only be successfully applied in a range of cases which is much narrower than the range in which advocates of strong versions of the PP typically attempt to apply the PP.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, Matthew. “Incommensurability and Cost-Benefit Analysis”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1998, 146, 1371–1418.
Anderson, Elizabeth. “Values, Risks and Market Norms.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1988, 17, 54–65.
Bargh, John A. and Chartrand, Tanya L. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 1999, 54, 462–479.
Bromley, Daniel, W. and Paavola, Jouni (eds). Economics, Ethics and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices. London: Wiley-Blackwell 2002.
Chaiken, Shelly and Trope, Yaacov. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press 1999.
Clarke, Steve. “Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle.” Ethics and Information Technology 2005, 7, 121–126.
Cranor, Carl. “Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle”, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2004, 29, 3, 259–279.
Friedman, Milton. Price Theory: A Provisional Text. Chicago: Aldine, 1962.
Gardiner, Stephen M. “A Core Precautionary Principle.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 2006, 14, 1, 33–60.
Hansson, Sven Ove. “The Limits of Precaution.” Foundations of Science 1997, 2, 293–306.
Hansson, Sven Ove. “Philosophical Problems in Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Economics and Philosophy 2007, 23, 163–183.
Jordan, Andrew and O’Riordan, Timothy. “Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle.” In The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Policy and Politics. Carolyn Raffensperger, and Joel. A. Tickner (eds). Washington: Island Press, 1999, 15–35.
Kahneman, Daniel. and Frederick, Shane. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgement.” In Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Judgement. Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 49–81.
Knight, Frank. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner and Marx, 1921.
LeRoy, Stephen, F. and Singell, Larry D. Jr. “Knight on Risk and Uncertainty.” Journal of Political Economy 1987, 95, 2, 394–406.
Majone, Giandomenico. “What Price Safety? The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications.” Journal of Common Market Studies 2002, 40, 1, 89–109.
Manson, Neil, A. “Formulating the Precautionary Principle.” Environmental Ethics 2002, 24, 263–274.
Pogge, Thomas. “Real World Justice.” The Journal of Ethics 2005, 9, 29–53.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Sandin, Per. “Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1999, 5, 5, 889–907.
Sandin, Per. “Common Sense Precaution and Varieties of the Precautionary Principle.” In Risk: Philosophical Perspectives. Tim Lewens (ed). London: Routledge, 2007, 99–112.
Sandin, Per, Peterson, Martin, Hannson, Sven Ove, Rudén, Christina, and Juthe, Andre. “Five Charges Against the Precautionary Principle.” Journal of Risk Research 2002, 5, 287–299.
Saunders, Peter and Ho, Mae Wan. “The Precautionary Principle is Coherent.” ISIS Paper 2000: http://www.biotech-info.net//PP_coherent.html. Last visit: 3 August 2007.
Schmidtz, David. “A Place for Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Philosophical Issues (A Supplement to Nous) 2001, 11, 148–171.
Schneider, Walter and Shiffrin, Richard M. “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: I. Detection, Search, and Attention.” Psychological Review 1977, 84, 1, 1–66.
Stern, Jessica and Wiener, Jonathan B. “Precaution against Terrorism.” Journal of Risk Research 2006, 9, 4, 393–447.
Sunstein, Cass. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel. “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability.” Cognitive Psychology 1973, 5, 207–232.
United Nations Environment Programme. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992. www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?ArticleID=1163&DocumentID=78&l=en. Last visit: 3 August 2007.
Weckert, John and Moor, James. “The Precautionary principle in Nanotechnology.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2006, 20, 2, 191–204.
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, 1998. www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html. Last visit: 3 August 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clarke, S. (2009). New Technologies, Common Sense and the Paradoxical Precautionary Principle. In: Sollie, P., Düwell, M. (eds) Evaluating New Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2228-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2229-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)