Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 583–595 | Cite as

Nuclear Power is Neither Right Nor Wrong: The Case for a Tertium Datur in the Ethics of Technology

  • Rafaela Hillerbrand
  • Martin PetersonEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Nuclear power Sustainability Risk Degree of moral rightness Moral theory 

References

  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Comim, F., Qizilbash, M., & Alkire, S. (2008). The capability approach: Concepts, measures, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Espinoza and Peterson. (2012). How to depolarise the ethical debate over human embryonic stem cell research (and other ethical debates too!). Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(8), 496–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2005). Energy indicators for sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
  6. Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond the social contract: Toward global justice. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 24, 413–508.Google Scholar
  8. Peterson, M. (2013). The dimensions of consequentialism. Ethics equality and risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rauschmayer, F., & Lessmann, O. (2011). Assets and drawbacks of the CA as a foundation for sustainability economics. Ecological Economics, 70, 1835–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reitinger, C., Dumke, M., Barosevcic, M., & Hillerbrand, R. (2011). A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach—A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 94–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Robeyns, I. (2011). The capability approach. Stanford: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  13. Roeser, S. (2011). Nuclear energy, risk and emotions. Philosophy and Technology, 24(2), 197–201.Google Scholar
  14. Roeser, R. H., Sandin, P., & Peterson, M. (2012). Handbook of risk theory. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–54). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Taebi, B. (2012). Multinational nuclear waste repositories and their complex issues of justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van de Poel, I. (2011). Nuclear energy as social experiment. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 14(3), 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Section for Philosophy and EthicsEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations