A Legal and Political Framework for the Proactionary Principle

Abstract

An important obstacle prevents the proactionary principle from being accorded the same legal standing as the precautionary principle. Whereas the proactionary principle was clearly meant as an equal and opposing imperative to the precautionary principle, in practice it tends to be treated as a modification or attenuation of the precautionary principle. Lost in the translation is that the two principles project alternative universal ideals for the human condition that are not obviously compatible with each other. Both principles are, in philosophical parlance, ‘axiological’. They are concerned with values, specifically: what is a human being for? The precautionary says that we are part of a larger whole called ‘nature’ and the meaning-fulness of our lives (not to mention our sheer survival) is based on our appreciating that deep metaphysical point. It is all about self-embedding. In contrast, the proactionary says that we are no mere part of nature; rather our existence gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless nature by serving as means to our ends. The precautionary wishes to return us to our biological origins, the proactionary to take us as far away from them as possible through endless acts of self-transcendence. This difference is ultimately grounded in the value of being human: are we animals suffering from too big brains (precautionary) or deities in need of more resources (proactionary)?