Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität im Kontext der Angewandten Ethik

Chapter
Part of the Studien zur Inneren Sicherheit book series (SZIS, volume 16)

Zusammenfassung

In einer Umfrage des Gallup-Institutes aus 2010 heißt es zur Akzeptanz von Körperscannern an amerikanischen Flughäfen: „[…] the majority, 67%, say they would not personally be uncomfortable in undergoing such a scan, with close to half (48%) saying they would not be uncomfortable at all.“ Andere Zahlen zeigen, dass sogar 81% der Befragten dafür sind, sogenannte Backscatter-Geräte an Flughäfen einzusetzen. Sollen wir uns nun an dieser Stelle wirklich damit befassen, ob es richtig und gut ist, ob es akzeptabel ist, Körperscanner einzusetzen? Sagen nicht die Zahlen genug aus, um die Frage zu beantworten, ob der Einsatz von Körperscannern ein geeignetes Mittel zur Terrorbekämpfung bzw. -prävention ist?

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Arrow, Kenneth (1963): Social choice and individual values. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blader, Steven L./Tyler (2003): A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29. 757–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzan, Barry/Waever, Ole/de Wilde, Jaap (1998): Security. A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  4. Ceva, Emanuela (2012): Beyond legitimacy. Can proceduralism say anything relevant about justice? In: Critical Review of International, Social and Political Philosophy 15. 2. 183–200.Google Scholar
  5. Cottam, Martha L./Dietz-Uhler, Beth/Mastors, Elena/Preston, Thomas (Hg.) (2010): Introduction to political psychology. New York, Hove: Psychology Press (2. Auflage).Google Scholar
  6. Fehr, Ernst/Fischbacher, Urs (2003): The nature of human altruism. Nature 425. 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishkin, James S. (2009): When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gaus, Gerald F./Favor, Christi/Lamont, Julian (Hg.) (2010): Essays on Philosophy, Politics & Economics. Integration & Common Research Projects. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, Gerd (2010): Rationality for mortals. How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grunwald, Armin (2005): Zur Rolle von Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität von Technik bei der Bewältigung von Technikkonflikten. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis, 14. 3. 54–60.Google Scholar
  11. Güth, Werner/Schmittberger, Rolf/Schwarze, Bernd (1982): An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. In: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3. 4. 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, Daniel (2011): Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, Daniel/Tversky, Amos (1979): Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In: Econometrica, 47.2. 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. List, Christian/Luskin, Robert C./Fishkin, James S./McLean, Iain (2006): Deliberation, singlepeakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. PSPE working papers 01-2006. Department of Government/London School of Economics and Political Science. London, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Mackie, Gerry (2006): Does democratic deliberation change minds? In: Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 5. 3. 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterson, Martin (2009): An introduction to decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richardson, Henry S. (2002): Democratic Autonomy. Public reasoning about the ends of policy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schramme, Thomas (2012): Mill, Miller, the Millest? Some thoughts on the methodology of political philosophy. Paper presented at the Ideals and Reality in Social Ethics, University of Wales, Newport.Google Scholar
  19. Schramme, Thomas (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript). Konvergenz normativer Überzeugungen und die Idee eines kollektiven Überlegungsgleichgewichts.Google Scholar
  20. Shapiro, Ian (2003): The moral foundations of politics. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Steiner, Jürg (2012): The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sugden, Robert (2011): The behavioural economist and the social planner: to whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed? Papers on Economics and Evolution. Retrieved from ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/evo/discussionpapers/2011-21.pdf
  23. Thaler, Richard H./Sunstein (2008): Nudge. Improving decision about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tyler, Tom R. (2011): Why people cooperate. The role of social motivations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. White, Mark D. (2010): Behavioral Law and Economics: The Assault on Consent, Will, and Dignity. In: Gaus et al (2010): 203–223.Google Scholar
  26. Wolkenstein, Andreas F.X. (in Vorbereitung). Dignity and its role in security ethics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TübingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations