|
The Issue Is it more ethical to use nuclear energy or to ban it? |
Any discussion of ethics is inevitably more or less subjective, and so cannot result in a factual summary, as for previous chapters dealing with nuclear issues. Accordingly, this issue is discussed under the following headings:
Out of this discussion some general principles have arisen. These are summarized here:
Principle of No Absolutes. Nothing is absolutely ethical, only more or less ethical
Principle of No Acceptable Risk. There is no single “acceptable risk”: acceptability represents a judgement that the risk of a proposed activity is low enough in view of the expected net benefits.
Principle of No Free Lunch. Making one activity much safer than the others results in limited resources being unavailable to make less safe activities safer, thus reducing overall safety.
Principle of Alternatives and Consequences. To decide on the ethics of some proposal, one must compare it with available alternatives, examining the consequences of each.
Principle of Risk Optimization. Risks should be optimized for the public benefit, considering technical, economic and social factors,, but with an absolute limit to the allowable risk for any individual however great the benefit to society at large.
Principle that Good Intentions are not Good Enough. There is an ethical obligation to examine the issue thoroughly before reaching a conclusion.
Principle that Facts Matter. Sound judgements have to be based on properly established facts.
Principle of Quantification where Possible. An informed comparison of the alternatives requires quantification of the factors involved, where possible.
Principle of Anti-Semanticism. Energy sources should be chosen on their merits, not as a matter of semantic dogma.
| Go to Contents of Book |