Is it acceptable to put another person at risk of harm without their permission? If so, what type of harm, what degree of risk, in what situations, how often, and why? If not, why not, and how might that force some or all of us to change our behavior to avoid unacceptable risks or consequences? These are some important questions that are both unanswered and rarely even discussed. However, I see a lot of people having conversations about risky behavior as if these questions have been seriously considered, thoroughly discussed, and answered to the satisfaction of most or all people. With all of that in mind, here are some of my thoughts on the difficulties involving questions about risk.
Driving is a good example with which to start. All driving carries some type of risk, whether to the driver, passengers, or bystanders. No matter how well the cars are maintained and driven, there is always a risk that something will go wrong and someone will be injured or killed. That risk may be close to zero but it is never zero. What, then, is the solution? Get permission to drive from everyone within range of a car before hitting the road? Even if possible, that would be extremely difficult and time-consuming. Further, by the time everyone within range has given their permission (and there may be some occasional holdouts that would make unanimous consent impossible, and would driving then be impermissible in those situations?), there may be some new people within range who would then have to also give their permission. If it’s not acceptable to put someone at even a minuscule risk of being injured or killed without their permission and such permission cannot be achieved, then that would spell the end of car travel. The same would go for air travel as air travel, even if it’s safer overall than car travel, still brings its own set of risks, such as being able to fly over a much greater distance than one can drive and thus put more people in potential harm’s way. No more driving to work, no more flying within or between countries, no more plane shipments, no more fire trucks, and no more ambulance. Those would be a few of the many changes that this would require.
In the example of car travel, what risks are acceptable and what risks are unacceptable? The answers depend on who you ask. Someone who wants things to continue largely as they are may point out all the pros of car travel and all potential cons of a public transportation system. Conversely, someone who wants a public transportation system may point out all the pros of such a system and all the cons of car travel. The difficult task is getting both people to take an objective look at each approach and weigh all considerations fairly to determine the better way to go. However, even if it can be clearly determined which system carries the least risk, that still doesn’t determine whether or not risk is even acceptable or answer the other questions at the start of this post.
Another important consideration is what risks would come from a massive shift in behavior. Sticking with the car example, suppose everybody did give up individual driving. How would that impact everyone’s ability to work, receive emergency assistance, visit their loved ones, escape from danger, etc? If everyone would be worse off overall without individual driving, would that make the risks of individual driving acceptable? If there are no perfect solutions, then the only other option I see is a trade-off that involves minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. That’s not my ideal answer so I keep searching in the hope of finding one.
I have no definite answers to any of the above questions. Further, I’m not convinced that any objective answers can be reached. It is absolutely possible to reach a variety of answers via subjective means. One way is by looking at each situation separately and coming up with individual solutions each time rather than developing a general approach that is meant to fit all situations. Another one includes everyone involved all coming to an agreement about what they want to do and what risks they’re willing to face. A third possibility involves using if/then statements to bring about an ought rather than trying to have an ought with no if/then qualifier (for example, “If you want to be healthy, then you ought to eat healthy foods” vs “You ought to eat healthy foods”).
Rather than providing answers, this has been my attempt to point out some potential problems with existing views about risk as well as attempt to start a much-needed conversation about risk in general. I’d much rather us be able to talk about these and other related issues so we can decide for ourselves what kind of world we’d like to live in rather than have those decisions made for us by people who neither know us nor have our best interests in mind. This has been my take on risk and now I’d like to hear yours. How do you answer the questions in this post? Let me know so that we can all have this long-overdue conversation and use it as a starting point to improve our world.