haku: @all regulation / yhteensä: 252
viite: 246 / 252
| Tekijä: | Wolff, J. |
| Otsikko: | Risk, fear, blame, shame and the regulation of public safety |
| Lehti: | Economics and philosophy
2006 : NOV, VOL. 22:3, p. 409-427 |
| Asiasana: | philosophy regulations risk safety |
| Kieli: | eng |
| Tiivistelmä: | The question of when people may impose risk on each other is of fundamental moral importance. Forms of "quantified risk assessment", especially risk cost-benefit analysis, provide a 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. This article argues that current forms of quantified risk assessment are inadequate, and in themselves, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that current practices are irrational. |
SCIMA