Skip to main content

Consent and the Justification of Risk Analysis

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis ((CIRA,volume 1))

Abstract

In a democracy, government is made legitimate by the consent of the governed. But figuring out what counts as consent where opinions are divided and why consent should be so valued poses deep problems, whether we are considering authority in general or are focusing our attention on a particular application of authority through government. Decisions about risk and safety that must be centralized, usually in regulatory agencies, provide some dramatic examples of this problem. The agencies must determine acceptable levels, distributions, and kinds of risk. Most of these agencies were established by legislation, but they were not established to do whatever they please. What should they do? How can they appeal to the consent of the governed to justify their decisions?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Baruch Fischhoff, “Cognitive and Institutional Barriers to Informed Consent,” in To Breathe Freely, edited by Mary Gibson (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985 ).

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.J. Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, Book I, chapter 5. The translation is attributed to one Mr. Hopkins and appears in Social Contract, edited by Sir Ernest Barker ( London: Oxford University Press, 1947 ), page 179.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid., Book IV, chapter 2, page 273.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This division is partly due to the influence of an excellent book by William Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risk (Los Altos: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1976), especially pages 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Mary Gibson, “To Breathe Freely: Risk, Consent and Air,” Center for Philosophy and Public Policy Working Paper RC-2, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See James Repace, “Risks of Passive Smoking,” CPPP Working Paper RC-8; in To Breathe Freely, edited by Mary Gibson ( Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Mark MacCarthy, “Reform of Occupational Safety and Health Policy,” CPPP Working Paper RC-4; in To Breathe Freely, edited by Mary Gibson ( Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For work by economists, see Charles Brown, “Equalizing Differences in the Labor Market,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 94 (1980): pages 113-134; also Martin Bailey, Reducing Risks to Life (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980). For work by psychologists, see Baruch Fischhoff et al., Acceptable Risk ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982); also see The Language of Risk, edited by Dorothy Nelkin ( Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985 ).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chauncey Starr and Chris Whipple, “The Risks of Risk Decisions,” Science 208 (6 June 1980): pages 1114–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ralph Keeney, “Ethics, Decision Analysis, and Public Risk,” Risk Analysis, 4 (1984): pages 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. John Barth, The End of the Road ( New York: Avon Books, 1958 ), page 89.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chauncey Starr and Chris Whipple, “The Risks of Risk Decisions,” page 1115.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Mark Sagoff, “Economic Theory and Environmental Law,” Michigan Law Review 79 (1981): pages 1393–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. This view is persuasively argued in Herman Leonard and Richard Zeckhauser, “Cost-Benefit Analysis Applied to Risks: Its Philosophy and Legitimacy,” in Values at Risk edited by Douglas MacLean (Totawa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986 ).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Michael Thompson, “To Hell With the Turkeys!” CPPP Working Paper RC-5; forthcoming in Values at Risk.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Ian Hacking, “Hume’s Species of Probability,” Philosophical Studies 33 (1978): pages 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. See Stuart Hampshire, “Morality and Pessimism,” Public and Private Morality, edited by Stuart Hampshire ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978 ), pages 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ronald Dworkin, “Why Efficiency?” Hofstra Law Review 8 (1981): pages 576 - 578.

    Google Scholar 

  20. The phrase is part of a well-known quote attributed to Lord Ashby, although I have been unable to find its origin. For the full quote and discussion, see Douglas MacLean, “Quantification, Regulation and Risk Assessment,” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, PSA 1982, Vol. 2, edited by Peter Asquith and Thomas Nickles ( East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1983 ), pages 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Douglas MacLean, “Valuing Human Life,” in Uncertain Power, edited by Dorothy Zinberg (New York: Pergamon Press, 1983 ), pages 89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  22. I have described these models of indirect consent more fully in Douglas MacLean, “Risk and Consent: Philosophical Issues for Centralized Decisions,” Risk Analysis 2 (1982): pages 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The remarks in this and the following paragraph draw heavily on Samuel Scheffler, “The Role of Consent in the Legitimation of Risky Activity,” in To Breathe Freely, edited by Mary Gibson (Totawa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985 ).

    Google Scholar 

  24. My remarks in this section draw heavily on Annette Baier, “Poisoning the Wells”; Allan Gibbard, “Risk and Value”; and Douglas MacLean, “Social Values and the Distribution of Risk”; all in Values at Risk, edited by Douglas MacLean ( Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985 ).

    Google Scholar 

  25. This quote is from an earlier draft of Allan Gibbard’s “Risk and Value” which he presented to a working group on risk and consent. It does not appear in the chapter published in Values at Risk edited by Douglas MacLean (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Douglas MacLean (ed.), Values at Risk ( Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986 ).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mary Gibson (ed.), To Breathe Freely: Risk, Consent, and Air (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

MacLean, D. (1986). Consent and the Justification of Risk Analysis. In: Covello, V.T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J. (eds) Risk Evaluation and Management. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9245-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2103-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics