Ethics and risk

The author attempts a systematic approach towards the ethical aspects of risk and proposes that the problem be locked at on different levels: The highest level might conceivably pertain to the problem of the survival of the human race and other species. This is the level on which the history of the human race and nature are to be looked at with reference to an ethics of ecology. From the anthropocentric perspective, a fundamental question of ecological ethics is formulated: The generations to directly follow us should have a basis of existence which is comparable to ours; this basis must be preserved for them in such a way that irreparable developments can be avoided and they can take full responsibility for their own future. Since there is no justification for taking risks which endanger the basis of the existence of the species, speculation on the probability of occurrence becomes irrelevant as well. On this level, on which we are concerned with natural history and the history of the human race, it is absolutely forbidden to even consider taking such risks. As regards partial but serious damage on a lower level (examples Chernobyl, Bophal) speculation on the probability of occurrence might have some degree of validity, but two additional criteria must be taken into account: 1. Codetermination: From an ethical point of view, such risks are only justified if those who are potentially affected by them have given their consent of their own free will in a democratic decision-making procedure and have knowledge of the facts relevant to the issue. 2. The argument of serious affliction: Most important of all, codetermination must operate on the basis of a clear knowledge of potential suffering. On a level on which the destruction of the basis of existence is not at stake, serious affliction might also be viewed as something which would make taking risks which might potentially incur such affliction totally inacceptable. (orig./HSCH)