precautionary principle

Question 1

precautionary principle

Answer 1

Better safe than sorry/err on
the side of caution

e.g. EU allowing member sates to ban GMO products based on limited scientific evidence of harm to humans

Question 2

when to use PP against RCBA

Answer 2

• For low probability/high stakes risks, where RCBA might deem safety measures not worth the cost (recall
  lifeboats)
• Where stakes are high, and uncertainty – about nature or probability of some hazard – makes RCBA difficult or impossible to perform

Question 3

against PP

Answer 3

take protective measures when scientific evidence about a (esp.
environmental) risk is uncertain, and the stakes are (very) high
1. Anti-science
2. Status quo bias
3. Creates incentives to maintain ignorance…..
4. vague!

Question 4

3-part structure for an action-guiding
precautionary principle - manson

Answer 4

If it is {knowledge condition} that an activity causes {damage condition} effects, then decision-
makers have an obligation to {remedy} the activity

Question 5

knowledge, damage, remedy conditions

Answer 5

knowledge = possible, suspected
damage = serious, harmful
remedy = ban, prevent, postpone

Question 6

extreme PP

Answer 6

If it is possible that an activity causes seriously harmful effects, then decision-makers have an obligation to strictly regulate or prevent the activity

• any political decision could lead to rioting, economic collapse, war, use of nuclear weapons - manson

Question 7

strong PP - sunstein

Answer 7

If it is scientifically plausible that an activity causes seriously harmful effects, then decision-makers have an obligation to strictly regulate or prevent the activity

• can threaten scientific progress - so many valuable innovations involve scientifically plausible possibilities of
  seriously harmful effects
• But the regulation/ban will also create scientifically plausible possibilities of significant harm in other domains - incoherence charge

Question 8

sunstein why pp is attractive

Answer 8

availability heuristic: judge the probability of a harm occurring according to ease with which we can bring to mind an example
➢ Risks that are less ‘available’ are less likely to be factored into our
thinking

Question 9

PP as a rhetorical device

Answer 9

might be a useful rallying
cry for political action – especially against environmental harm

• a tool we use to try to realize the commitments we already hold
  Not a principle that tells us how we ought to respond to risk

Question 10

refining PP to make it more useful

Answer 10

1. Refine the strong action-guiding PP to avoid the incoherence charge
2. PP as a broad maxim, to be filled out in specific cases through public deliberation
   3.

Question 11

Shue refining PP

Answer 11

Three jointly sufficient conditions for ‘prompt and robust’ action to mitigate risk

1. magnitude of potential human loss is massive
2. likelihood of loss is significant, even if no precise probability can be determined
3. costs of prevention are not excessive