 |
| Chernobyl disaster |
Oxford Languages gives the following two definitions to the word Ethics:
Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or
the conducting of an activity.
The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
The Wikipedia gives the following
definition:
A branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts
of right
and wrong behavior.
Since Aristotle wrote two (or three) books
on ethics (the Nicomachean Ethics,
the Eudemian Ethics, and perhaps
the Magna Moralia or Great Ethics), ethics has been considered an
important part of philosophy.
Traditionally, three main approaches have been considered (there are more) that can serve as a framework for the construction of ethics:
 |
| Aristotle |
- Aristotelian Ethics, or virtue theory:
The goal of ethics is to convert each person into the best possible person.
Morality would depend more on the character of persons (vices and virtues)
than on their actions. Each person must first develop an excellent character;
practicing virtues will be the result:
He who possesses excellence of character will tend to do what is
right
(Nichomachean Ethics, Book II)
 |
| Immanuel Kant |
- Kant’s framework, or deontological theory:
The moral law is objective and obligates everyone. It is a categorical
imperative. Its consequence is a set of duties and rights common
to all. Correct conduct is that which conforms best to the objective law:
Act in such a way that everything you do can become a universal
principle, valid for everyone.
- The utilitarian framework, or utility theory:
The goal of this ethics is to maximize happiness for as many people as
possible. Correct behavior is that which benefits the greatest number of
people.
The end (the benefit of the majority) justifies the means.
Since Jeremy Bentham formulated the
utilitarian framework at the end of the 18th century, it has spread (more or
less modified) to many modern societies. On the other hand, the deontological
framework is behind the UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights of 1948, whose frequent current
transgression is usually based on utilitarianism.
Today utilitarian ethics predominates even
in the scientific and technological world. Let’s look at an example in this
news article published by the digital magazine PhysicsWorld:
How sound is the model used to establish safe radiation levels?
The protection of human beings against
excess radiation is, evidently, a technological issue with important ethical
consequences. To measure the effects of radiation, three different systems have
been described:
1. The linear no-threshold model (LNT)
assumes that any amount of radiation is dangerous, and that the risk is
proportional (grows linearly) with the amount of radiation received.
2. The threshold model states that radiation doses below
a certain value (the threshold) do not pose a risk. That is, exposure to small
doses of radiation is not dangerous and can be ignored.
3. The hormesis or homeostatic model asserts that small
doses of radiation are beneficial and help protect against disease.
The LNT model is applied in the United
States and other countries to calculate the risks of radiation exposure for
medical personnel, nuclear power plant workers, and all environments where
radiation risk exists.
The news article from PhysicsWorld echoes
a proposal to change this mandatory model for one of the other two. And what is
the reason given? Perhaps that one of the other models is more faithful to
reality? Well, no. The reason is this:
One of the many reasons… is that convictions of its accuracy
continue to be used as an argument against nuclear power plants… But the
critical need to find a workable alternative to fossil fuels for energy
production requires an honest ability to assess the validity of this model.
It’s clear, right? What matters is not
whether the LNT model is correct, but whether we should replace it with another
so that opposition to the use of nuclear power plants decreases, which would make
it easier to replace fossil fuels to a greater extent. The safety of the workers
is not important; the true objective (eliminating fossil fuels) is supposed to
be more beneficial for a greater number of people.
I agree that fossil fuels should be
replaced by nuclear fission energy; I’ve never been a visceral opponent of that
energy source. But I don’t think it’s right to lead people to accept its use by
reducing protection levels against personnel risks. If the reason given were a
study concluding that one of the alternative models is better, it would be quite
different. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, and is scarcely considered by the
author of the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment