Addressing the Diversity of Risks and Accounting for Systemic Risks: Two Proposals for Improving Clarity in Philosophical Discussions of Risk

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Friedemann Bieber
{"title":"Addressing the Diversity of Risks and Accounting for Systemic Risks: Two Proposals for Improving Clarity in Philosophical Discussions of Risk","authors":"Friedemann Bieber","doi":"10.2143/EP.25.3.3285422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The lack of engagement of philosophy with decisions made under conditions of risk and uncertainty has lately received increasing attention. But philosophers have devoted little thought to the development of a conceptual framework for distinguishing different types of risks. This article begins by illus- trating the need for a more nuanced conceptual framework. As the normative considerations risks give rise to are highly varied, ethicists need to distinguish between different types of risks. It then offers two ideas. First, it proposes that we understand ‘risk’ as a multi-dimensional concept, i.e. a concept that can always be evaluated in different dimensions, e.g. a qualitative, a quantitative and an epistemic dimension. While this understanding of risk underlies the current practice of risk analysis, making it explicit is of value, in particular for the phil- osophical debate. It draws attention to the diversity of risks, helps to group them sensibly and sharpens existing arguments. Second, the article introduces a novel account of the notion ‘systemic risk’. Criticising existing accounts, it proposes we understand ‘systemic risk’ as referring to a risk that endangers the function- ing of a system and originates in the system or its background noise, where a system is conceived of as a set of interdependent, interacting components that form a complex, functionally defined whole. The article identifies a number of structural features shared by systemic risks and evaluates the distinctive norma- tive considerations they give rise to. It then argues that the notion ‘systemic risk’ is particularly suited to characterise some of the most pressing risks faced in an increasingly interconnected world. While the notion ‘systemic risk’ rests on the understanding of ‘risk’ as a multi-dimensional concept, it also complements it. Its necessity shows that in addressing risks, it is sometimes helpful to move beyond a characterisation based solely on their dimensions.","PeriodicalId":54109,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.25.3.3285422","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The lack of engagement of philosophy with decisions made under conditions of risk and uncertainty has lately received increasing attention. But philosophers have devoted little thought to the development of a conceptual framework for distinguishing different types of risks. This article begins by illus- trating the need for a more nuanced conceptual framework. As the normative considerations risks give rise to are highly varied, ethicists need to distinguish between different types of risks. It then offers two ideas. First, it proposes that we understand ‘risk’ as a multi-dimensional concept, i.e. a concept that can always be evaluated in different dimensions, e.g. a qualitative, a quantitative and an epistemic dimension. While this understanding of risk underlies the current practice of risk analysis, making it explicit is of value, in particular for the phil- osophical debate. It draws attention to the diversity of risks, helps to group them sensibly and sharpens existing arguments. Second, the article introduces a novel account of the notion ‘systemic risk’. Criticising existing accounts, it proposes we understand ‘systemic risk’ as referring to a risk that endangers the function- ing of a system and originates in the system or its background noise, where a system is conceived of as a set of interdependent, interacting components that form a complex, functionally defined whole. The article identifies a number of structural features shared by systemic risks and evaluates the distinctive norma- tive considerations they give rise to. It then argues that the notion ‘systemic risk’ is particularly suited to characterise some of the most pressing risks faced in an increasingly interconnected world. While the notion ‘systemic risk’ rests on the understanding of ‘risk’ as a multi-dimensional concept, it also complements it. Its necessity shows that in addressing risks, it is sometimes helpful to move beyond a characterisation based solely on their dimensions.
应对风险的多样性和系统性风险的核算:提高风险哲学讨论清晰度的两项建议
在风险和不确定性条件下做出的决定缺乏哲学的参与,最近受到了越来越多的关注。但是,哲学家们很少考虑开发一个区分不同类型风险的概念框架。本文首先说明需要一个更细致的概念框架。由于风险所引起的规范性考虑是高度多样化的,伦理学家需要区分不同类型的风险。然后,它提出了两个想法。首先,它建议我们将“风险”理解为一个多维概念,即一个可以从不同维度进行评估的概念,例如定性、定量和认知维度。虽然这种对风险的理解是当前风险分析实践的基础,但使其明确是有价值的,特别是对于哲学辩论。它使人们注意到风险的多样性,有助于对风险进行合理的分类,并使现有的争论更加尖锐。其次,本文引入了对“系统性风险”概念的新解释。批评现有账户,它建议我们理解“系统性风险”是指危及系统功能的风险,起源于系统或其背景噪音,其中系统被认为是一组相互依存,相互作用的组件,形成一个复杂的,功能定义的整体。本文确定了系统性风险共有的一些结构性特征,并评估了它们所引起的独特的规范性考虑。然后,它认为,“系统性风险”这个概念特别适合描述在一个日益相互关联的世界中面临的一些最紧迫的风险。虽然“系统性风险”的概念依赖于对“风险”作为一个多维概念的理解,但它也是对“风险”的补充。它的必要性表明,在处理风险时,有时超越仅仅基于其维度的特征是有帮助的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信