Modeling the precautionary principle with lexical utilities

被引:9
作者
Bartha, Paul [1 ]
DesRoches, C. Tyler [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Philosophy, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
[2] Arizona State Univ, Sch Sustainabil, POB 875502, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[3] Arizona State Univ, Sch Hist Philosoph & Religious Studies, POB 875502, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
关键词
Precautionary principle; Environment; Lexicographic utility; Decision Theory; DECISION-THEORY; ECONOMICS;
D O I
10.1007/s11229-021-03179-4
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
Confronted with the possibility of severe environmental harms, such as catastrophic climate change, some researchers have suggested that we should abandon the principle at the heart of standard decision theory-the injunction to maximize expected utility-and embrace a different one: the Precautionary Principle. Arguably, the most sophisticated philosophical treatment of the Precautionary Principle (PP) is due to Steel (2015). Steel interprets PP as a qualitative decision rule and appears to conclude that a quantitative decision-theoretic statement of PP is both impossible and unnecessary. In this article, we propose a decision-theoretic formulation of PP in terms of lexical (or lexicographic) utilities. We show that this lexical model is largely faithful to Steel's approach, but also that it corrects three problems with Steel's account and clarifies the relationship between PP and standard decision theory. Using a range of examples, we illustrate how the lexical model can be used to explore a variety of issues related to precautionary reasoning.
引用
收藏
页码:8701 / 8740
页数:40
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection [J].
Ackerman, F ;
Heinzerling, L .
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 2002, 150 (05) :1553-1584
[2]  
Ackerman F., 2009, CAN WE AFFORD FUTURE
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, The Environment: Philosophy, Science, and Ethics
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Review Journal of Political Philosophy
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1987, Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory
[6]   Bayesianism, infinite decisions, and binding [J].
Arntzenius, F ;
Elga, A ;
Hawthorne, J .
MIND, 2004, 113 (450) :251-283
[7]   The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change. An editorial essay on The Stern Review [J].
Barker, Terry .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2008, 89 (3-4) :173-194
[8]   The Relatively Infinite Value of the Environment [J].
Bartha, Paul ;
DesRoches, C. Tyler .
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2017, 95 (02) :328-353
[9]   The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson [J].
Boyer-Kassem, Thomas .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2017, 37 (11) :2039-2040
[10]   Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent? [J].
Boyer-Kassem, Thomas .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2017, 37 (11) :2026-2034