In the article “The Paralyzing Principle,” Cass Sunstein argues that there are two different versions of the Precautionary Principle: the strong version and the weak version. He claims that the weak version is completely uncontroversial, as it argues for avoiding possible dangers by expending finite resources with the goal of staving off far worse outcomes than the relatively small costs. This weak principle is reasonable because there are many dangers that are possible that, if they did occur, would be much worse in the long run than taking a precautionary step at the present moment to avoid. However, the strong principle takes this fundamentally sensible option to an extreme. The strong principle argues that if there is any risk of hazard, …show more content…
Sunstein argues that this happens due to many biases that afflict common human thought processes; these include loss aversion, the myth of benevolent nature, the availability heuristic, and probability neglect, among others. Thus, for these and a plethora of other reasons, people will claim that the strong Precautionary Principle ought to be highly valued in decisions concerning regulatory policy-making, even though the principle cannot be logically defended as legitimate. The strong Precautionary Principle leads to a logical roadblock that cannot be bypassed except by human biases and logical …show more content…
I agree completely with Sunstein's claim that the strong Precautionary Principle is impotent when dealing with regulatory policy. Since almost every action or prevention will have some type of risk associated with it (whether it be the loss of opportunity benefits, high costs, inherent dangers of the new policy, etc.), the strong Precautionary Principle will continually lead to logical contradictions and fall apart on itself when it is used to make decisions. However, that is the point at which Sunstein's argument reaches its apex. Sunstein argues that people are able to use the strong Precautionary Principle because of a handful of common biases. However, I disagree with this. No one actually uses the strong Precautionary
Similar to what the article states, we have seen that risk is something that can go wrong, which we are unaware until a crisis happens. Many people tend to ignore the short tails of distribution saying they don't matter because there's a low possibility that it will occur. Think back to one such “perfect storm” that happened back in ...
For instance, when Singer talks about the strong and weak principles, he says, "I shall not discuss [the pros vs cons of the two principles], since, as I have said, I can see no good reason for holding the moderate version of the principle rather than the strong version"(141). The strong principle is this “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it” (136). Singer’s point with this principle is that we are obliged to limit moral wrong, as in this case from famine, in anyway not morally wrong until that point at which by giving any more we cause as much suffering to ourselves as the amount of suffering we relieve. This principle, Singer thinks, is almost as uncontroversial as his assumption, of that I would say I disagree because, as I will show, it doesn’t take into account the right to your future.
Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure
Many traditions and values of the American society are beneficial, but some are harmful. Acceptance of utilitarianism will preserve beneficial traditions while replacing the harmful ones. As a result, new traditions, grounded in reason, will emerge, and future generations may wonder how the irrational and unnatural non-utilitarian values had survived for so long.
Nielsen’s next major premise is that if a consequentialist is faced with a decision from which the overall value of the consequences is unclear, then consequentialism should yield to the relevant deontological rule. That is to say, if it is possible that violating a deontological rule to bring about greater good may l...
Risk assessment is a tool especially used in decision-making by the scientific and regulatory community. In Making Good Decisions, Peter Montague discusses the use of risk assessment, points out its lack of usefulness in his opinion, and posits that the current use of risk assessment today is largely unethical. He states that "Risk Assessment is one way of making decisions, but it is not the only way, and it is not the best way." (Montague, date unknown, p.1) Decision making in itself carries a substantial amount of risk because decisions are made in a less-than-perfect world. One never has all the information possible (Harris, 1998) and every decision charts a course into an unknown future. However, there are times where the potential for injury to people, animals or the environment in that unknown future should be evaluated and be considered in the development of alternatives. It is particularly important in the determination of appropriate courses of action when introduction of new chemicals into an environment or population is being contemplated.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
“The value of the next best alternative foregone as the result of making a decision”(Brue, 2005)
Total Physical Response and Total Physical Response Storytelling teaches students commands and command responses through physical movement. This requires the teacher to act out the commands/words by demonstrating them with movement. An example would be teaching the word run. The teacher would say run then start running and repeat the word several times. After demonstrating the word, the teacher would of the students follow suit by repeating and acting out the motion. The teacher then would slowly release responsibility of acting out to the students. Eventually, the teacher would only say the word run with the students performing the action.
Long term viability and lowering the risk of any possible action – the solution must be advantageous in the long run with the least amount of risk involved instead of just achieving short term cost advantages.
A restorative theory claims that sleep is used to repair the body including the brain. Oswald suggests that slow wave sleep is when body repair occurs and REM sleep is when the brain is repaired. This is supported by the fact that there is an increase in the secretion of growth hormones during SWS. This could also explain why brain activity levels are high during REM sleep, and similar to when awake.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
An 'economic cost-benefit analysis' approach to reasoning sees actions favoured and chosen if the benefit outweighs the cost. Here, the benefits and costs are in the form of economic benefits and costs, such as, monetary loss or profit. One who is motivated by such an approach will deem a course of action preferable if doing so results in an economic profit. Conversely, actions will be avoided if they result in an economic loss (Kelman 1981).
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
Decision-making that affects the lives of the public or occurs in a high-risk, delicate situation cannot afford to be aimless. Thus, it is logical that philosophies have been developed to direct an individual’s behavior and are applicable in various fields such as the criminal justice system and the public sector. The utilitarian ethic is a school of thought that can conceivably impact the actions employed in public administration. The principle behind the utilitarian ethic holds that maximizing the happiness for the greatest number should function as the foundation when formulating judgments (Starling, 2011, p. 187). Therefore, the utilitarian ethic can facilitate the interests of those individuals that identify as being a part of the greatest number, but considerably disadvantage the “minority”. For example, suppose that the government is faced with a crisis and their designated response can result in either the mass loss of human life or the deaths of a few. Consequently, officials may determine that ensuring the