Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist

The Problem of Many Hands: Climate Change as an Example

In some situations in which undesirable collective effects occur, it is very hard, if not impossible, to hold any individual reasonably responsible. Such a situation may be referred to as the problem of many hands. In this paper we investigate how the problem of many hands can best be understood and why, and when, it exactly constitutes a problem. After analyzing climate change as an example, we propose to define the problem of many hands as the occurrence of a gap in the distribution of responsibility that may be considered morally problematic. Whether a gap is morally problematic, we suggest, depends on the reasons why responsibility is distributed. This, in turn, depends, at least in part, on the sense of responsibility employed, a main distinction being that between backward-looking and forward-looking responsibility.

Responsibility in Engineering: Toward a New Role for Engineering Ethicists

Traditionally, the management of technology has focused on the stages before or after development of technology. In this approach the technology itself is conceived as the result of a deterministic enterprise; a result that is to be either rejected or embraced. However, recent insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) have shown that there is ample room to modulate technology during development. This requires technology managers and engineering ethicists to become more involved in the technological research rather than assessing it from an outsider perspective. Instead of focusing on the question whether or not to authorize, approve, or adopt a certain technology or on the question of who is to blame for potential mistakes, the guiding question in this new approach is how research is to be carried out.

Nuclear energy, responsible risk communication and moral emotions: a three level framework

Communication about nuclear risks is treacherous territory, especially after Fukushima, requiring not only considerations about effectiveness, but also about ethical legitimacy. In this paper, a three-level framework of morally responsible risk communication is developed, focusing on the procedure, the message and the effects of risk communication. This gives rise to three conditions of ethically responsible risk communication: it requires a legitimate procedure, an ethically justified risk message and concern for and evaluation of the effects of the message and procedure. The role of emotions, such as sympathy, empathy and feelings or responsibility, is emphasized as a key to addressing and explicating moral values at these three levels. Emotions point out moral aspects of risks such as justice, fairness and autonomy. This framework can shed important new light on morally responsible communication about nuclear risks. The first condition of this framework requires that the procedure of communication is participatory, in order to include the relevant moral emotions and values concerning nuclear energy of all stakeholders. A legitimate procedure does not guarantee an ethically justified message concerning nuclear risks. For this reason, the second condition requires an ethical deliberation of the message and the values and emotions entailed in it. Finally, the third condition requires a moral evaluation of the effects of risk communication concerning nuclear energy. A successful risk communication effort triggers reflection, compassion and a willingness to take responsibility for energy-related issues. Problematic effects of risk communication can be a lack of trust or a sense of hopelessness and passivity. Evaluating all three levels from a moral point of view should be done in an iterative way, allowing possible revisions and improvements. Considering the high stakes and current stalemates in the nuclear debate, the suggested model provides a promising, constructive and morally legitimate way forward.

Responsibility ascriptions and public health problems

AimDiscussions about who is responsible for public health problems such as obesity and smoking-related diseases are often heated. A central question concerns the extent to which individuals are responsible for the consequences of their health-impairing behaviour and whether the State and the food and tobacco industries can justifiably be said to be responsible, too. The controversy may be partly due to the two aims of responsibility ascriptions: that they should be morally justified and that they should be efficient. The primary aim of this article is to achieve more clarity in the analysis of this issue.MethodThe method used in the article is conceptual analysis in the tradition of moral philosophy.ResultsThere are two major perspectives on responsibility ascriptions. First, there is the merit-based idea that responsibility should be ascribed to someone who deserves to be held accountable, e.g. because he or she voluntarily and knowingly brought about his or her own health impairment. Second, there is the consequentialist view that responsibility should be ascribed in ways that have as good effects as possible. There are two values at stake here: Responsibility ascriptions in public health should satisfy criteria of moral norms or fairness as well as of efficiency.ConclusionIt is argued that both perspectives should be taken into account in public health policymaking. It is concluded that it is important to be aware of the two views of responsibility ascriptions in public health discussions and the policymaking process and to aim at striking a balance between the two.

Risk and Responsibility

When a risk materializes, it is common to ask the question: who is responsible for the risk being taken? Despite this intimate connection between risk and responsibility, remarkably little has been written on the exact relation between the notions of risk and responsibility. This contribution sets out to explore the relation between risk and responsibility on basis of the somewhat dispersed literature on the topic and it sketches directions for future research. It deals with three more specific topics. First we explore the conceptual connections between risk and responsibility by discussing different conceptions of risk and responsibility and their relationships. Second, we discuss responsibility for risk, paying attention to four more specific activities with respect to risks: risk reduction, risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. Finally, we explore the problem of many hands (PMH), that is, the problem of attributing responsibility when large numbers of people are involved in an activity. We argue that the PMH has especially become prominent today due to the increased collective nature of actions and due to the fact that our actions often do not involve direct harm but rather risks, that is, the possibility of harm. We illustrate the PMH for climate change and discuss three possible ways of dealing with it: (1) responsibility-as-virtue, (2) a procedure for distributing responsibility, and (3) institutional design.

Saving lives in road traffic—ethical aspects

AimThis article aims at giving an overview of five ethical problem areas relating to traffic safety, thereby providing a general framework for analysing traffic safety from an ethical perspective and encouraging further discussion concerning problems, policies and technology in this area.Subjects and methodsThe problems presented in the article are criminalisation, paternalism, privacy, justice and responsibility, and the reasons for choosing these are the following. First, they are all important areas in moral philosophy. Second, they are fairly general and it should be possible to categorise more specific problems under these headings. Ethical aspects of road traffic have not received the philosophical attention they deserve. Every year, more than 1 million people die globally in traffic accidents, and 20 to 50 million people are injured. Ninety per cent of the road traffic fatalities occur in low- and middle-income countries, where it is a growing problem. Politics, economics, culture and technology affect the number of fatalities and injuries, and the measures used to combat deaths in traffic as well as the role of road traffic should be ethically scrutinised. The topics are analysed and discussed from a moral-philosophical perspective, and the discussion includes both theory and applications.Results and conclusionThe author concludes with some thoughts on how the ethical discussion can be included in the public debate on how to save lives in road traffic. People in industrialised societies are so used to road traffic that it is almost seen as part of nature. Consequently, we do not acknowledge that we can introduce change and that we can affect the role we have given road traffic and cars. By acknowledging the ethical aspects of road traffic and illuminating the way the choices society makes are ethically charged, it becomes clear that there are alternative ways to design the road traffic system. The most important general conclusion is that discussion concerning these alternative ways of designing the system should be encouraged.This article aims at giving an overview of five ethical problem areas relating to traffic safety, thereby providing a general framework for analysing traffic safety from an ethical perspective and encouraging further discussion concerning problems, policies and technology in this area. The problems presented in the article are criminalisation, paternalism, privacy, justice and responsibility, and the reasons for choosing these are the following. First, they are all important areas in moral philosophy. Second, they are fairly general and it should be possible to categorise more specific problems under these headings. Ethical aspects of road traffic have not received the philosophical attention they deserve. Every year, more than 1 million people die globally in traffic accidents, and 20 to 50 million people are injured. Ninety per cent of the road traffic fatalities occur in low- and middle-income countries, where it is a growing problem. Politics, economics, culture and technology affect the number of fatalities and injuries, and the measures used to combat deaths in traffic as well as the role of road traffic should be ethically scrutinised. The topics are analysed and discussed from a moral-philosophical perspective, and the discussion includes both theory and applications. The author concludes with some thoughts on how the ethical discussion can be included in the public debate on how to save lives in road traffic. People in industrialised societies are so used to road traffic that it is almost seen as part of nature. Consequently, we do not acknowledge that we can introduce change and that we can affect the role we have given road traffic and cars. By acknowledging the ethical aspects of road traffic and illuminating the way the choices society makes are ethically charged, it becomes clear that there are alternative ways to design the road traffic system. The most important general conclusion is that discussion concerning these alternative ways of designing the system should be encouraged.

Experience of non-breastfeeding mothers: Norms and ethically responsible risk communication

Background: Breastfeeding is currently strongly recommended by midwives and paediatricians, and the recommendations are based on documents provided by the World Health Organization and public health authorities worldwide. Research question: The underlying question is, how are non-breastfeeding mothers affected emotionally when informed that breastfeeding is the safest and healthiest option? Research design: The method used is an anonymous web-based qualitative survey exploring the narratives of non-breastfeeding mothers, published on Thesistools.com. The aim is to achieve qualitative knowledge about the emotions of non-breastfeeding mothers. Participants and research context: Participants were based in Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and were selected through a purposeful sample. Ethical considerations: The online survey anonymizes responses automatically, and all respondents had to tick a box agreeing to be quoted anonymously in scientific articles. The study conforms to research ethics guidelines. Findings: Respondents describe how they were affected, and the following themes emerged in studying their descriptions: depression, anxiety and pain, feeling failed as a mother and woman, loss of freedom/feeling trapped, relief and guilt. Discussion: The themes are discussed against the background of the ethics of care and a theory of ethically responsible risk communication. Conclusion: Three conclusions are made. First, the message should become more empathetic. Second, information should be given in an attentive dialogue. Third, information providers should evaluate effects in a more inclusive way.

Vaccine hesitancy and trust. : Ethical aspects of risk communication

AIM This paper analyses vaccination policy from an ethical perspective, against the background of the growing hesitancy towards e.g. the measles vaccine. METHODS The paper is normative and analyses ethical aspects of risk communication in the context of vaccination. It is argued that ethical analysis of risk communication should be done at the level of the message, the procedure and the effects. The paper takes examples from the Swedish context, linking the current lack of trust in experts to the 2009 vaccination policy and communication promoting the H1N1 vaccine Pandemrix. RESULTS During the Swedish H1N1 vaccination policy in 2009, the message was that the vaccine is safe. However, a group of adolescents developed narcolepsy as a side effect of the vaccine. Taking this into account, it becomes clear that the government should communicate risks and benefits responsibly and take responsibility for individuals affected negatively by populational health interventions. CONCLUSION To communicate respectfully entails not treating vaccine sceptics as ill-informed or less educated, but instead taking the concerns of the vaccine hesitant, who potentially could change their minds, as a starting-point of a respectful discussion. There will inevitably be individuals who suffer from side effects of justifiable population-based health promotion activities. However, the public should be able to trust the message and count on the government to take responsibility for individuals affected by side effects. This is important for normative reasons, but is additionally likely to contribute to restored and maintained trust.