• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?
【24h】

Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?

机译：预防原则真的不连贯吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Precautionary Principle has been an increasingly important principle in international treaties since the 1980s. Through varying formulations, it states that when an activity can lead to a catastrophe for human health or the environment, measures should be taken to prevent it even if the cause-and-effect relationship is not fully established scientifically. The Precautionary Principle has been critically discussed from many sides. This article concentrates on a theoretical argument by Peterson (2006) according to which the Precautionary Principle is incoherent with other desiderata of rational decision making, and thus cannot be used as a decision rule that selects an action among several ones. I claim here that Peterson's argument fails to establish the incoherence of the Precautionary Principle, by attacking three of its premises. I argue (i) that Peterson's treatment of uncertainties lacks generality, (ii) that his Archimedian condition is problematic for incommensurability reasons, and (iii) that his explication of the Precautionary Principle is not adequate. This leads me to conjecture that the Precautionary Principle can be envisaged as a coherent decision rule, again.
机译：自1980年代以来，预防原则已成为国际条约中越来越重要的原则。通过不同的表述，它指出，当一项活动可能导致人类健康或环境灾难时，即使因果关系尚未得到科学的充分确立，也应采取措施加以预防。预防原则已经从许多方面进行了严格的讨论。本文着重于Peterson（2006）的理论论证，根据该论证，“预防原则”与理性决策的其他愿望不一致，因此不能用作在多个决策中选择一个行动的决策规则。我在这里声称，彼得森的论据未能通过攻击预防原则的三个前提来确立预防原则的不连贯性。我认为（i）彼得森对不确定性的处理缺乏普遍性；（ii）由于不可通约性的原因，他的阿基米德病是有问题的；以及（iii）他对预防原则的解释是不够的。这使我猜想，可以将预防原则再次设想为一致的决策规则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号