The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk Christian Munthe Department of Philosophy, Göteborg University Based on: Munthe C, The Morality of Precaution: Towards an Interpretation and Justification of the Precautionary Principle (2006, in progress)

The Precautionary Principle n Many different formulations u In the face of some activities that are risky to some extent, some measure may/should be undertaken. (cf. P. Sandin) n Basic underlying thought: lack of precaution has a morally significant price - we have reason to avoid it. u My former neighbour, the terrorist n Three recurring ideas: u The Burden of Proof Requirement u The Proof Requirement of Justifiable Policy Claim (Rio Declaration, EU) u The Requirement of Precaution (TRP) F Activities that may bring great harm should not be (allowed to be) undertaken unless they have been shown not to bring too serious risks. n TRP best expresses the underlying idea of PP n The other two are either possible instruments of implementation or lack action or policy guiding power.

Interpretation & Justification n Unclarities of TRP: u May (de minimis risk, proof standards?) u Harm (what values?) u Great harm (how much must be at stake?) u Shown (proof standards?) u Risks (likelihood, outcome, combination, quantitative or qualitative?) u Too serious risks (ethics of risks) n Different combinations of specifications render different versions of TRP (or PP) that prescribe different policies. n What version is more justified? n Two formal requirements: u Avoid decisional paralysis: some option has to be permitted u Supported by reasons (not arbitrary): anti-conservatism. u Meet the standard arguments against PP (Harris, Häyri, McKinney, Sunstein et. al.) u Leaves a large number of very different versions.

The Ethics of Precaution n Some versions of TRP will prescribe the use of more time, resources and/or the abstaining from more potentially beneficial activities than others. n The potential benefits may include reduction of serious risks or prevention of great harm! n THUS: also precaution has a morally significant price n SO: What price of precaution is acceptable in order to avoid lack of precaution? u Example: Environmentally beneficial GMO crop with unclear long-term risks of ecological disaster. n The aim of the ethics of precaution is to identify the version of TRP that prescribes a (morally) proper price of precaution n This requires an ethics of risks

Problems in the Ethics of Risks n Decision Theory or Traditional Ethics cannot solve the key issues (lack of normativity or too factualistic): u What reason do we have to avoid risks (as such)? u What determines the strength of these reasons? u How should our reasons to avoid risks be balanced against F Chances to achieve benefits (avoidance of other risks) F Benefits F Harms u Are there “forbidden risks”? F The extinction of humanity? u What reasons do we have with regard to “epistemic risks” F Creating risks on the basis of an unnecessary uncertain risk assessment is a morally relevant drawback F Reducing uncertainty has a price F No way of knowing what the actual outcome of reducing uncertainty will be (if we knew, there would be no uncertainty!)

My own ideas… n There are no “forbidden risks” (decisional paralysis) n In order for the imposition of a risk to be morally responsible there has to bee a sufficiently good reason. n “Unnecessary” risks indefensible. u VERY many consumer products and practices in our society due to doubtful or marginal chances of benefits n The responsibility of imposing risks is a matter of degree relative to… u What options are open in a situation u The moral importance of the harms, benefits, risks and chances produced by these options u The quality of the basis of knowledge for the assessment of the above F Hallandsåsen… F Improving this quality always has a price that has to be taken into the equation n Avoidance of harm/risks increasingly more important than securing further (chances of) benefits if an option secures a sufficiently acceptable mix of risks and chances.

Practical Implications n The important thing is not PP, but to have policies that prescribe a proper price of precaution. Such policies… u …make use of science but stand free from it: F Moral assessments have the last call F Stronger requirement of evidence based policy making than today u …are not essentially conservative or reactionary (but may have “revisionary” implications). u …allow for “calculated risk taking” (RCB-analysis still useful) u …prescribe a higher price of precaution the better off we are u …have implications for global justice: F Affluent nations overproducers of risks F Underdeveloped countries underproducers of risks F Example: Endowment of pollution rights for trade á la Kyoto u …should ideally be applied on a global scale F The precaution of many nations may add up to a global lack of precaution F A challenge fort current models of international policy making