Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis demonstrates that the Precautionary Principle frames decision problems under uncertainty, indicating that catastrophic potential outcomes justify heightened risk aversion.
The Precautionary Principle (PP) urges us to be cautious when we face a threat of serious damage to the environment or human health, even where there is scientific uncertainty concerning the threat. PP appears to go beyond ordinary decision theory by taking more seriously the risk of very negative outcomes. Some attempts to regard PP as a substantive addition to decision theory are criticized. It is better, I argue, to regard PP as concerned with the proper setting up of a decision problem, to which decision theory can then be applied. Importantly, PP urges special attention to particularly bad potential outcomes. I identify several reasons for this special attention. One reason concerns ethical principles and constraints. I identify some additional reasons as well, which concern some easily neglected forms of harms that cluster among the particularly bad potential outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Øystein Linnebo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: