Zusammenfassung
In einer Umfrage des Gallup-Institutes aus 2010 heißt es zur Akzeptanz von Körperscannern an amerikanischen Flughäfen: „[…] the majority, 67%, say they would not personally be uncomfortable in undergoing such a scan, with close to half (48%) saying they would not be uncomfortable at all.“ Andere Zahlen zeigen, dass sogar 81% der Befragten dafür sind, sogenannte Backscatter-Geräte an Flughäfen einzusetzen. Sollen wir uns nun an dieser Stelle wirklich damit befassen, ob es richtig und gut ist, ob es akzeptabel ist, Körperscanner einzusetzen? Sagen nicht die Zahlen genug aus, um die Frage zu beantworten, ob der Einsatz von Körperscannern ein geeignetes Mittel zur Terrorbekämpfung bzw. -prävention ist?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Arrow, Kenneth (1963): Social choice and individual values. London: Yale University Press.
Blader, Steven L./Tyler (2003): A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29. 757–758.
Buzan, Barry/Waever, Ole/de Wilde, Jaap (1998): Security. A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Ceva, Emanuela (2012): Beyond legitimacy. Can proceduralism say anything relevant about justice? In: Critical Review of International, Social and Political Philosophy 15. 2. 183–200.
Cottam, Martha L./Dietz-Uhler, Beth/Mastors, Elena/Preston, Thomas (Hg.) (2010): Introduction to political psychology. New York, Hove: Psychology Press (2. Auflage).
Fehr, Ernst/Fischbacher, Urs (2003): The nature of human altruism. Nature 425. 785–791.
Fishkin, James S. (2009): When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaus, Gerald F./Favor, Christi/Lamont, Julian (Hg.) (2010): Essays on Philosophy, Politics & Economics. Integration & Common Research Projects. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gigerenzer, Gerd (2010): Rationality for mortals. How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grunwald, Armin (2005): Zur Rolle von Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität von Technik bei der Bewältigung von Technikkonflikten. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis, 14. 3. 54–60.
Güth, Werner/Schmittberger, Rolf/Schwarze, Bernd (1982): An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. In: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3. 4. 367–388.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011): Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kahneman, Daniel/Tversky, Amos (1979): Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In: Econometrica, 47.2. 263–291.
List, Christian/Luskin, Robert C./Fishkin, James S./McLean, Iain (2006): Deliberation, singlepeakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. PSPE working papers 01-2006. Department of Government/London School of Economics and Political Science. London, UK.
Mackie, Gerry (2006): Does democratic deliberation change minds? In: Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 5. 3. 279–303.
Peterson, Martin (2009): An introduction to decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, Henry S. (2002): Democratic Autonomy. Public reasoning about the ends of policy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Schramme, Thomas (2012): Mill, Miller, the Millest? Some thoughts on the methodology of political philosophy. Paper presented at the Ideals and Reality in Social Ethics, University of Wales, Newport.
Schramme, Thomas (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript). Konvergenz normativer Überzeugungen und die Idee eines kollektiven Überlegungsgleichgewichts.
Shapiro, Ian (2003): The moral foundations of politics. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Steiner, Jürg (2012): The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sugden, Robert (2011): The behavioural economist and the social planner: to whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed? Papers on Economics and Evolution. Retrieved from ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/evo/discussionpapers/2011-21.pdf
Thaler, Richard H./Sunstein (2008): Nudge. Improving decision about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Tyler, Tom R. (2011): Why people cooperate. The role of social motivations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White, Mark D. (2010): Behavioral Law and Economics: The Assault on Consent, Will, and Dignity. In: Gaus et al (2010): 203–223.
Wolkenstein, Andreas F.X. (in Vorbereitung). Dignity and its role in security ethics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolkenstein, A. (2014). Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität im Kontext der Angewandten Ethik. In: Ammicht Quinn, R. (eds) Sicherheitsethik. Studien zur Inneren Sicherheit, vol 16. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03203-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03203-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-03202-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-03203-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)