Philosophy Essay
frenzelddw
safety_and_risk_-_ethical_dimensions.pptxSafety and Risk – ethical dimensions
Comparison of Martin text with Harris article
The Ethical Questions according to Martin text
The ethical question: “Under what conditions, if any, is someone in society entitled to impose a risk on someone else on behalf of a supposed benefit to yet others?” p. 120
This raises the problem of distributive justice, or distribution of risks, rather than simply measuring the magnitude of a harm or benefit by its probability, as engineers typically do.
Worst-case scenario: persons exposed to maximum risks while they are also reaping only minimum benefits: Are their rights violated? Should they be provided safer alternatives? (see rights ethics)
A risk to a known person (or to identifiable individuals) is perceived differently from statistical risks
Need for informed consent to risky activities (see Kantian duty ethics); if consent cannot be gotten, must compensation be provided? Should compensation be based on the tolerance of an average person or should it take into consideration sensitivities of special populations, such as the disabled or those with allergies or those who sick or children or aged, etc?
Example of worst case scenarios
Should persons living by a refinery that benefits the general public, but potentially harms the residents with toxic wastes be entitled to compensation? If it is a proposed refinery, should those in the neighborhood have veto power over the project? Should their consent be required? Should they be compensated for any harms they experience?
Should hazardous jobs have increased wages, and is that sufficient? Should employees be screened for pre-existing conditions that might make them more vulnerable to certain risks on the job?
Definition of “Safety”, according to Martin text
Safety: “ A thing is safe if, where its risks fully known, those risks would be judged acceptable by reasonable persons in light of their settled value principles.” (p. 107)
Are risks ever fully known, even by the engineer, especially with new technology?
Does this imply that the public must be fully informed of all risks accompanying any technology?
Who counts as “reasonable persons”? What if a physically abled person thinks it is reasonable to have street curbs and a person in a wheelchair thinks it is unreasonable?
The acceptability of risk becomes a means by which to bring ethical questions into the picture, even before the question of “settled value principles” is considered.
Other Definitions, in Martin Text
Risk: “A risk is the potential that something unwanted and harmful may occur.” (p. 108)
The risk refers to future events.
Types of unwanted occurrences: dangers of bodily harm, economic loss, environmental degradation.
“New risks”: in the sense that they are now identifiable “because of changes in the magnitude…”, “because they have passed a certain threshold of accumulation in our environment, or because of a change in measuring techniques;” (p. 108) OR public’s perception has changed. (Example: Have carbon emissions passed a certain threshold that will impact and speed up global warming?)
Natural Hazards: (examples from Fukushima)
Disposal Services: (sewers, landfills, toxic wastes, etc.)
Definition of Acceptability of Risk, according to Martin Text
Acceptability of Risk: William D. Rowe: “A risk is acceptable when those affected are generally no longer (or not) apprehensive about it.” (p. 109)
Apprehensiveness depends upon how the risk is perceived:
Is the risk accepted voluntarily? (and matter of control which can lead to underestimating probabilities of harm or overconfidence); (example: Dirt bikes: Are innocent bystanders harmed?)
What is the effect of information on risk assessment? (presentation of dangers to the public who prefer firm gains and want to avoid firm losses over possible gains)
Job-related risks:
Magnitude and proximity of harm (compare Bentham’s criteria in his hedonistic calculus): (examples: An airplane crash v. automobile accidents; friends v. strangers; dismissing future risks, as if they are less probable or belief that a countermeasure will be found in time.
Discussion question #2 on p. 113 – 114)
Assessing and Reducing Risk (Martin Text)
Improvements in safety increase cost of production, but unsafe products can incur secondary costs, such as warranty expenses, loss of customer goodwill, litigation, etc.
Uncertainties in Design can occur due to purpose of a design; actual operating conditions under which product will be used (e.g., static v. dynamic loads on a bridge); materials of which product is made:
Cannot rely only on manuals, building codes, and suppliers’ data, which only applies to statistical averages
Factor of safety: “A product may be said to be safe if its capability [stresses product is supposed to withstand] exceeds it duty [stressed caused by anticipated load].” (p. 117)
Capability Curve rather than a point: Trying to achieve a margin of safety, rather than simply a factor of safety, due to “facts of variability that result in different variabilities for the same safety factor.” (Edward B. Haugen), cited on p. 118
Risk-Benefit Analysis (compare cost/benefit analysis and utilitarianism)
Both risks and benefits lie in the future
Who establishes these values and how?
What if the benefits are about to be realized in the near future but the risks are far off? (example: use of oil, and fossil fuels?)
Benefits accrue to one party and risks incurred by another party
Concerned with advisability of undertaking a project; and not as a guide to the relative merits of different designs: Should the project be carried out at all?
Lack of Safe Exits, according to Martin text
It is impossible to build a product that will never fail
When a product fails it should fail safely, or the product can be abandoned safely, or the user can safely escape the product. (Compare Fukushima)
“It is not obvious who should take responsibility for providing safe exit.” (p. 127) (recognizing the need for this; and issuing warnings when safe exit does not exist can be responsibilities of engineers); Should you continue if you have received valid consent for continuation of a project, despite warnings of no safe exit?
Redundant systems, backup systems;
User needs procedures for regular maintenance and safety checks
Cannot rely only on intended use of product: Examples of children accidentally stuck in refrigerators;
Harris Article defines acceptability of risk from the point of view of engineer, public, and regulatory agencies
Engineer’s or risk expert’s criterion of acceptable risk: “An acceptable risk is one in which the product of the probability and magnitude of the harm is equaled or exceeded by the product of the probability and magnitude of the benefit, and there is no other option where the product of the probability and magnitude of the benefit is substantially greater.” (use of risk/benefit analysis and a comparison to utilitarianism) (p. 138)
Expanding the engineering account of risk: The capabilities approach to Identifying Harm and Benefit
“A risk is acceptable if the probability is sufficiently small that the adverse effect of a hazard will fall below a threshold of the minimum level of capabilities attainment that is acceptable in principle.” (p. 141)
Capability refers to the real options a person has in functioning, such as being alive, being healthy, being sheltered, being able to play;
Hazards reduce or impair capabilities;
Tries to capture broader impacts on well-being
The Public’s Approach to Risk
“An acceptable risk is one in which (1) risk is assumed by free and informed consent, or properly compensated, and in which (2) risk is justly distributed, or properly compensated.” (p. 145)
Free and informed consent: no coercion, relevant information, rational and competent evaluator of information.
Public considers “risky” events as those which are new and unfamiliar, as a “warning sign…that special care should be taken in a certain area” (p. 142) (Compare irradiated food to risk of food poisoning from microbes)
The Government Regulator’s Approach to Risk
“An acceptable risk is one in which protecting the public from harm has been weighted more heavily than benefiting the public.” (p. 147) (This is sometimes called the “precautionary principle”)
Public policy interests are not always in agreement with scientific scruples; scientists want to avoid “false positives”, that is, claiming that a correlation is actually evidence of cause unless the cohort studies are large enough and the data supports this; while regulators want to avoid “false negatives”, ignoring the possibility that materials, chemicals, etc. could be causing harm because their mandate is typically to the protect the public. (This again is the application of a precautionary principle.)
Harris’ approach to safety and risk and the responsibility of engineers
“…Social policy regarding risk must take into consideration wider perspectives than the risk expert approach…” because realistically the public and regulators will continue to make their demands, and “we believe that the two alternative approaches to risk have a genuine moral foundation.” [p. 147]
Should professional engineers “continue to follow the risk expert’s approach to risk and let public debate take care of the wider considerations” or do “engineers have a wider professional obligation” “to participate in democratic deliberation regarding risk by contributing their expertise to this debate”? [p. 148]
See the guideline for engineers communicating to the public on p. 148
