What’s the Harm?: An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle has been hailed as the new paradigm for contending with health and environmental risk in the context of emerging technologies. In the philosophical literature, however, it has been met with skepticism. Weaker conceptions of the precautionary principle are accused of being...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
2010
|
| In: |
Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
Year: 2010, Volume: 20, Issue: 2, Pages: 181-206 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1826983902 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221214052544.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221214s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1353/ken.0.0311 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1826983902 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1826983902 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Powell, Russell |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a What’s the Harm?: An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2010 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The precautionary principle has been hailed as the new paradigm for contending with health and environmental risk in the context of emerging technologies. In the philosophical literature, however, it has been met with skepticism. Weaker conceptions of the precautionary principle are accused of being trivial or vacuous, while stronger versions are criticized for issuing irrationally restrictive or even contradictory prescriptions. Although the precautionary approach suffers from a number of conceptual defects, it nonetheless could be justified in certain biological domains if it were the case that evolution tended to produce optimal, delicately balanced equilibria that generally coincided with what we value. This justification fails, however, since it is premised on assumptions about the causal structure of the world that do not accord with contemporary evolutionary theory. This does not exclude the possibility that the precautionary principle may be warranted for other reasons or in certain settings, but it does remove a potentially powerful rationalization, one that has motivated much of the scholarship, law, and policy that is inclined toward the precautionary approach. | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |a Kennedy Institute of Ethics |t Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal |d Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1991 |g 20(2010), 2, Seite 181-206 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320481840 |w (DE-600)2009887-X |w (DE-576)266818668 |x 1086-3249 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:20 |g year:2010 |g number:2 |g pages:181-206 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0311 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/383740 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 20 |j 2010 |e 2 |h 181-206 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4230894775 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1826983902 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20221214052544 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 221214||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-05#7674AC7D4CFB1780C73EDAA50F6414A0FF99DD09 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||