Abstract

Etienne de Villiers, more than other theologians, elaborates on basic elements of a Christian ethics of responsibility. He distinguishes between retrospective and prospective responsibility. The prospective aspect attracted awareness after the nuclear accident in the Fukushima reactors on 11 March 2011. The question on how to respond in an ethically responsible manner to catastrophic risks was put back on the agenda. The article takes up this question and discusses the answer given in the international debate by the introduction of the �precautionary principle�. The principle is described with its background in the �heuristics of fear�, proposed by the philosopher Hans Jonas. Four criticisms are discussed in detail relating to the problems of scientific uncertainty, the burden of proof, the weight of damages and the perils of precaution. That leads to a reformulation of the precautionary principle as a concrete element within an ethics of responsibility.

Highlights

  • Postal address: Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Wallenberg Research Centre, Stellenbosch University, Marais Street, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa

  • The article takes up this question and discusses the answer given in the international debate by the introduction of the ‘precautionary principle’

  • Etienne de Villiers discussed over the last number of years the ways in which Christian theology has taken up newer debates on an ethics of responsibility

Read more

Summary

Original Research

Affiliations: 1Fellow of the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Stellenbosch, South Africa. Postal address: Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Wallenberg Research Centre, Stellenbosch University, Marais Street, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa. How to cite this article: Huber, W., 2012, ‘After Fukushima: The precautionary principle revisited’, Verbum et Ecclesia 33(2), Art. Etienne de Villiers, more than other theologians, elaborates on basic elements of a Christian ethics of responsibility. He distinguishes between retrospective and prospective responsibility. The question on how to respond in an ethically responsible manner to catastrophic risks was put back on the agenda. That leads to a reformulation of the precautionary principle as a concrete element within an ethics of responsibility

Ethics of responsibility
On rational responses to catastrophic risks
Lessons from Fukushima
Controversies around the precautionary principle
Scientific uncertainty
The burden of proof
The weight of damages
Perils of precaution
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call