IF text 5

The belief that situations involving risk do not require special ethical principles or considerations, leading to the idea that there is no distinct field of ethics of risk.

A philosophical perspective that determines values and their relative importance without explicitly considering risk or uncertainty.

A theory that focuses on making rational decisions in situations involving risk or uncertainty based on maximizing the expected value of outcomes, given preferences and probabilities.

The concept of measuring the value of different outcomes in terms of utility, which represents individual satisfaction or well-being.

A principle that suggests maximizing the expected utility of actions, taking into account the probabilities of different outcomes.

A philosophical framework that emphasizes maximizing utility or happiness by considering the overall consequences of actions.

A method for handling uncertainty in decision-making where subjective probabilities are assigned to outcomes, even when objective probabilities are unknown.

A system of ethics that does not require specific principles for dealing with risk, because all ethical considerations can be derived from maximizing utility.

A situation where an action, even if it doesn't cause harm, still violates someone's rights because it involves a deliberate risk of harm. This is illustrated by the example of playing Russian roulette, where even if a blank is fired, the act itself constitutes a violation of the person's right not to be subjected to such a risk.

The principle that rights exist independently of duties. This means that a person's right exists whether or not someone else has a corresponding duty to respect it. For example, a person has the right not to be harmed, even if the harm is unintentional.

The idea that allowing any level of risk, no matter how small, to harm others would be unacceptable. This is because even a tiny probability of causing harm can still be considered a violation of someone's right not to be harmed.

The concept that individuals are allowed to engage in actions that carry a very low probability of harming others. This is necessary to avoid paralyzing society, as any action could potentially lead to harm.

The question of whether the acceptable threshold of risk for harming others should be the same for all types of harm. Should the same level of risk be allowed for minor harm as for serious harm?

The idea that the same level of risk should be allowed for all types of harm, even those that are very minor or trivial. This leads to an absurdity, as even actions like soiling someone's handkerchief without permission could be considered a violation of rights.

An action that harms someone's property without their consent, even if the harm is minor. This is considered a violation of rights because it involves worsening the condition of their property without their permission.

A society characterized by limited technology, careful resource management, and small communities, often advocated for by those seeking a safer, more sustainable way of life.

The idea that in such a society, individuals might be willing to accept some additional risk in order to participate in activities that benefit them, even if those activities pose a risk to others.

The belief that activities involving risk to others can be made safer by taking appropriate precautions, allowing for a balance between individual freedom and collective safety.

The concept that even individuals with different levels of risk tolerance can come to an agreement on acceptable levels of risk, allowing for activities to proceed while minimizing harm.

The potential conflict arising from differences in values and attitudes towards risk, particularly in situations where individuals may disagree on the acceptability of activities that could pose risks to others.

A proposed solution where individuals agree to live with a certain level of risk in exchange for the benefits of engaging in specific activities, even if those activities pose some risk to others.

The idea that the level of risk involved in an activity can often be adjusted by implementing stricter precautions, making it more acceptable to those who are more risk-averse.

The realization that striking a balance between individual freedom and collective safety requires careful consideration of varying values and attitudes towards risk, leading to complex ethical dilemmas.

The belief that even if someone is compensated for a risky activity, they should still have the right to refuse to participate if the risk makes them feel insecure or afraid.

The idea that being subjected to risks that cause fear or anxiety is a harm to someone's well-being, even if no physical injury occurs.

The potential for harm due to a risky activity that is too small to cause fear but still undesired by the individual.

The idea that someone's well-being is harmed not just by direct negative experiences, but also by the knowledge that they are being subjected to risks that might harm them in the future.

The conflict between those who want to pursue risky but potentially beneficial activities and those who prioritize safety and want to minimize risk.

The argument that people who are more cautious about risks should have their preferences respected, even if it means limiting the activities of those who are less cautious.

The potential for someone's desires and aspirations to be restricted if they are prohibited from engaging in risky activities due to the concerns of others.

The idea that even activities that might not directly cause harm can still be considered unethical if they involve imposing a significant risk on others.

The difference principle dictates that the situation of the least advantaged group should be maximized, and one element of this is protection from harm. This means focusing on minimizing risks especially for those who are most vulnerable.

It's challenging to determine how much risk is acceptable when weighing the potential benefits against the potential harms. Even if everyone benefits from a certain activity (like driving), it's tricky to define how much risk is 'fair'.

The difference principle helps control the inequalities in risk distribution, but it provides limited guidance on overall acceptable risk levels. It doesn't tell us how much risk is 'too much' in general, but rather focuses on fairness between different groups.

The 'priority of liberty' emphasizes individual freedoms. However, excessive liberty can lead to increased risk for everyone. This raises questions about balancing individual rights with the collective risks associated with unchecked freedoms.

Some freedoms can increase general risk levels to the point where the potential downsides outweigh any benefits. Drunk driving is an example where the risks to individuals and society are so high that restrictions on the freedom to drive drunk are justified.

Harsanyi's 'veil of ignorance' is a thought experiment where individuals choose moral principles without knowing their own position in society. This allows for unbiased judgment, but unlike Rawls, it assumes everyone has an equal chance of being anyone.

Harsanyi's veil of ignorance encourages choosing principles that maximize overall well-being, even if it means accepting some degree of risk for some individuals. This approach prioritizes collective benefit over individual guarantees of safety.

A risk that is so small it does not cause anxiety, even for someone who is generally nervous about risks. It doesn't trigger any negative emotional response even though it technically goes against a person's interests.

The idea that people are willing to agree to things, even if they gain nothing from it, simply because the act of agreeing itself carries a positive value or because the consequences of not agreeing are negative.

A situation where an action involves a slight risk of causing harm, but the risk is so low that it does not cause anxiety or significantly diminish a person's well-being.

The idea that there is a certain level of nervousness about risks that is considered normal, while anything beyond that is classified as paranoia or pathological anxiety.

When a person's well-being is not negatively affected by the thought of potential loss, even though the loss represents a reduction in expected utility.

The idea that a person's interests are not solely determined by their desire to maximize their own utility, but also by their willingness to accept certain risks as part of living a fulfilling life.

A philosophical perspective on risk that acknowledges the possibility of harm, but argues that some level of risk is unavoidable and acceptable within a reasoned framework.

The concept that some risks are not worth taking, even if they offer potential benefits, because the potential harms outweigh the potential gains.