IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/90470.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Philosophical issues related to risks and values

Author

Listed:
  • Kinouchi, Renato

Abstract

This paper begins with the assumption that the concept of risk implies an entanglement between facts and values. This is not an arbitrary assumption since it can directly be deduced from the standard notion of risk. The value-ladenness of risk raises at least two further issues: the first one concerns the scales adopted to evaluate the severity of risks; the second concerns the commensurability/comparability of risks to human health and the environment. Some additional light is shed on those issues whether the models used in risk analysis were understood as fictions limited by the values that they can include. From this point of view, controversies on the limited scope of standard risk assessments are not only descriptive but also evaluative.

Suggested Citation

  • Kinouchi, Renato, 2018. "Philosophical issues related to risks and values," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:90470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90470/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644112.
    2. Mary Morgan, 2001. "Models, stories and the economic world," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 361-384.
    3. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    4. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521643368.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Rodenburg, 2005. "Models as measuring instruments: measurement of duration dependence of unemployment," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 407-431.
    2. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Julian Reiss, 2001. "Natural economic quantities and their measurement," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-311.
    4. Aumann, Craig A., 2007. "A methodology for developing simulation models of complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 385-396.
    5. Florian Ellsaesser & Eric W. K. Tsang & Jochen Runde, 2014. "Models of causal inference: Imperfect but applicable is better than perfect but inapplicable," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(10), pages 1541-1551, October.
    6. Stephen Pratten, 2007. "Realism, closed systems and abstraction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 473-497.
    7. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    8. Peter C. B. Phillips, 2003. "Laws and Limits of Econometrics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages 26-52, March.
    9. Midgley, Gerald, 2008. "Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.:: The unification of systems thinking: Is there gold at the end of the rainbow?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 317-321, August.
    10. Nicolas Brisset, 2018. "Models as speech acts: the telling case of financial models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 21-41, January.
    11. Toby Ord & Rafaela Hillerbrand & Anders Sandberg, 2010. "Probing the improbable: methodological challenges for risks with low probabilities and high stakes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 191-205, March.
    12. Enzo Lenine, 2020. "Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Simon Hall & Nilufa Ali & Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford, 2016. "Discounting and Augmentation in Causal Conditional Reasoning: Causal Models or Shallow Encoding?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Paul Shaffer, 2018. "Causal pluralism and mixed methods in the analysis of poverty dynamics," WIDER Working Paper Series 115, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Freese, Jeremy & Peterson, David, 2017. "Replication in Social Science," SocArXiv 5bck9, Center for Open Science.
    16. Catherine Laurent & Jacques Baudry & Marielle Berriet-Solliec & Marc Kirsch & Daniel Perraud & Bruno Tinel & Aurélie Trouvé & Nicky Allsopp & Patrick Bonnafous & Françoise Burel & Maria José Carneiro , 2009. "Pourquoi s'intéresser à la notion d' « evidence-based policy » ?," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(4), pages 853-873.
    17. Javier Gómez Pineda, 2008. "El crecimiento económico y la supervivencia: el caso de las matemáticas y la economía"," Borradores de Economia 4579, Banco de la Republica.
    18. Sang Yi, 2002. "The nature of model-based understanding in condensed matter physics," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 3(1), pages 81-91, March.
    19. Natalie B. Aviles & Isaac Ariail Reed, 2017. "Ratio via Machina: Three Standards of Mechanistic Explanation in Sociology," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 715-738, November.
    20. Polly Mitchell & Anna Alexandrova, 2021. "Well-Being and Pluralism," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2411-2433, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    commensurability; comparability; fiction; models; risk; values;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F3 - International Economics - - International Finance
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:90470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.