Assessing Policies of Responding to the Risk and Impacts of Earthquakes from a Justice Perspective

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

The paper addresses two important issues in assessing policies of responding to the risk of and the damages caused by earthquakes. First, the complex uncertainties concerning the occurrence and impacts of earthquakes raise difficult issues from the perspective of a philosophical theory of justice when assessing policies to reduce the impact of possible earthquakes. We propose a particular understanding of what justice requires, namely risk-averse weak sufficientarianism, and show how this understanding can justify the reduction of the imposition of risks of harms. Second, we address how one should respond to unavoided and unavoidable damages caused by earthquakes. Here we suggest that we should view such damages primarily as a reason for redistribution, and therefore as a matter of distributive justice.

Keywords

Sufficientarianism Risk Uncertainty Justice Earthquakes Climate change 

References

  1. Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth RB, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assement models of climate change. Clim Change 95:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar C, Lindgren K (2003) Editorial commentary: catastrophic events and stochastic cost-benefit analysis of climate change. Clim Change 56:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnbacher D (2003) Analytische Einführung in die Ethik. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Finkelstein C (2003) Is risk a harm? Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 151:100–963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Füssel H-M (2007) Methodological and empirical flaws in the design and application of simple climate-economy models. Clim Change 81:161–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lempert RJ (2002) A new decision science for complex systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7309–7313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: Comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27:1009–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meyer LH (2003) Past and future: the case for an identity-independent notion of harm. In: Meyer LH, Paulson SL, Pogge TW (eds) Rights, culture, and the law: themes from the legal and political philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp 143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer LH (2009a) Intergenerationelle Suffizienzgerechtigkeit. In: Goldschmidt N (ed) Generationengerechtigkeit. Ordnungsökonomische Konzepte, Mohr, pp 281–322Google Scholar
  10. Meyer LH (2009b) Sufficientarianism. Both international and intergenerational? In: Schramm M et al (eds) Absolute poverty and global justice. Ashgate, London, pp 133–144Google Scholar
  11. Meyer LH, Roser D (2010) Climate justice and historical emissions. Crit Rev Int Soc and polit philos 13:229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer LH, Sanklecha P (2016) Philosophy of justice: extending liberal justice in space and time. In: Sabbagh C, Pogge M (eds) Handbook of social justice theory and research. Springer, New York, pp 15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Page EA (2006) Climate change, justice and future generations. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Page EA (2007) Justice between generations: investigating a sufficientarian approach. J Global Ethics 3:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perry S (2007) Risk, harm, interests, and rights. In: Lewens T (ed) Risk. Philosophical per-spectives, Routledge, pp 190–209Google Scholar
  16. Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Shiffrin S (1999) Wrongful life, procreative responsibility, and the significance of harm. Le-gal theory 5:117–148Google Scholar
  18. Shue H (1993) Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law and policy 15:39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steigleder K (2016) Climate risks, climate economics, and the foundations of rights-based risk ethics. J Hum Rights 15:251–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomson JJ (1986) Rights, restitution, and risk. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Zimmermann MJ (2006) Risk, rights, and restitution. Philos Stud 128:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of Graz (Austria)GrazAustria

Personalised recommendations