Skip to main content Accessibility help



The question of when people may impose risks on each other is of fundamental moral importance. Forms of “quantified risk assessment,” especially risk cost-benefit analysis, provide one powerful approach to providing a systematic answer. It is also well known that such techniques can show that existing resources could be used more effectively to reduce risk overall. Thus it is often argued that some current practices are irrational. On the other hand critics of quantified risk assessment argue that it cannot adequately capture all relevant features, such as “societal concern” and so should be abandoned. In this paper I argue that current forms of quantified risk assessment are inadequate, and in themselves, therefore, insufficient to demonstrate that current practices are irrational. In particular, I will argue that insufficient attention has been given to the cause of a hazard, which needs to be treated as a primary variable in its own right. However rather than reject quantified risk assessment I wish to supplement it by proposing a framework to make explicit the role causation plays in the understanding of risk, and how it interacts with factors which influence perception of risks and other attitudes to risk control. Once an improved description of risk perception is available it will become possible to have a more informed debate about the normative question: how safety should be regulated.

Hide All
Adams, J. 2001. Risk. Routledge
Baier, A. 1986. Poisoning the wells. In Values at Risk, ed. MacLean, D.. Rowman and Allenheld. 4974
Burgess-Jackson, K. 1994. Justice and the distribution of fear. Southern Journal of Philosophy 32: 367–91
Commission for Integrated Transport. 2004. Rail safety: revision of Factsheet 10. URL=
Evans, A. W. 2005. Fatal train accidents on Britain's main line railways: end of 2004 analysis. URL=
Health and Safety Executive. 2001. Reducing risks protecting people. HSE Books. URL=
Hopkins, A. 2004. Safety, culture and risk. CCH Books
Jones-Lee, M. W. 1991. Altruism and the value of other people's safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4: 213–19
Jones-Lee, M. W. 1992. Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. Economic Journal 102: 8090
Jones-Lee, M. et al. 1999. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2 – The CV/SG “chained” approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17: 187213
Lomborg, B. 2001. The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge University Press
Lomborg, B. 2003. Paper given to Spiked conference: panic attack, London, 9 May
Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., and Slovic, P. (eds.) 2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press
Posner, R. 2004. Catastrophe, risk and response. Oxford University Press
Schelling, T. C. 1984. The life you save may be your own. In his Choice and consequence, 113–46. Harvard University Press
Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. Earthscan
Sunstein, C. 2002. Risk and reason. Cambridge University Press
Wolff, J. 2002. Railway safety and the ethics of the tolerability of risk. Rail Standards and Safety Board. URL= safety and the ethics of the tolerability of risk.pdf
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed