Nuclear Power is Neither Right Nor Wrong: The Case for a Tertium Datur in the Ethics of Technology
- 726 Downloads
The debate over the civilian use of nuclear power is highly polarised. We argue that a reasonable response to this deep disagreement is to maintain that advocates of both camps should modify their positions. According to the analysis we propose, nuclear power is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong, but rather right and wrong to some degree. We are aware that this non-binary analysis of nuclear power is controversial from a theoretical point of view. Utilitarians, Kantians, and other moral theorists make sharp, binary distinctions between right and wrong acts. However, an important argument speaking in favour of our non-binary analysis is that it better reflects our considered intuitions about the ethical trade-offs we face in discussions of nuclear power. The aim of this article is to make this argument sharp by explaining how it can be rendered compatible with, and supported by, the Capability Approach, which is quickly becoming one of the most influential frameworks for thinking about human development.
KeywordsNuclear power Sustainability Risk Degree of moral rightness Moral theory
- Ayres, R. U., Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (1998). Viewpoint, weak versus strong sustainability. In Tinbergen Institute discussion papers (pp. 98–103). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Tinbergen Institute.Google Scholar
- Edward, N. Z. (Ed.). URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/capability-approach/.
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2005). Energy indicators for sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond the social contract: Toward global justice. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 24, 413–508.Google Scholar
- Robeyns, I. (2011). The capability approach. Stanford: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
- Roeser, S. (2011). Nuclear energy, risk and emotions. Philosophy and Technology, 24(2), 197–201.Google Scholar
- Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar