Download Free Rational Responses To Risks Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Rational Responses To Risks and write the review.

Good decisions account for risks. For example, the risk of an accident while driving in the rain makes a reasonable driver decide to slow down. While risk is a large topic in theoretical disciplines such as economics and psychology, as well as in practical disciplines such as medicine and finance, philosophy has a unique contribution to make in developing a normative theory of risk that states what risk is, and to what extent our responses to it are rational. Weirich here develops a philosophical theory of the rationality of responses to risk. He first distinguishes two types of risk: first, a chance of a bad event, and second, an act's risk in relation to its possible outcomes. He argues that this distinction has normative significance in the sense that one's attitudes towards these types of risks - and how one acts on them - are governed by different general principles of rationality. Consequently, a comprehensive account of risk must not only characterize rational responses to risk but also explain why these responses are rational. Weirich explains how, for a rational ideal agent, the expected utilities of the acts available in a decision problem explain the agent's preferences among the acts. As a result, maximizing expected utility is just following preferences among the acts. His view takes an act's expected utility, not just as a feature of a representation of preferences among acts, but also as a factor in the explanation of preferences among acts. The book's precise formulation of general standards of rationality for attitudes and for acts, and its rigorous argumentation for these standards, make it philosophical; but while mainly of interest to philosophers, its broader arguments will contribute to the conceptual foundations of studies of risk in all disciplines that study it.
"A philosophical account of risk, such as this book provides, states what risk is, which attitudes to it are rational, and which acts affecting risks are rational. Attention to the nature of risk reveals two types of risk, first, a chance of a bad event, and, second, an act's risk in the sense of the volatility of its possible outcomes. The distinction is normatively significant because different general principles of rationality govern attitudes to these two types of risk. Rationality strictly regulates attitudes to the chance of a bad event and is more permissive about attitudes to an act's risk. Principles of rationality governing attitudes to risk also justify evaluating an act according to its expected utility given that the act's risk, if any, belongs to every possible outcome of the act. For a rational ideal agent, the expected utilities of the acts available in a decision problem explain the agent's preferences among the acts. Maximizing expected utility is just following preferences among the acts. This view takes an act's expected utility, not just as a feature of a representation of preferences among acts, but also as a factor in the explanation of preferences among acts. It takes account of an agent's attitudes to an act's risk without weakening the standard of expected-utility maximization. The view extends to evaluations of combination of acts, either simultaneous or in a sequence. Applications cover hedging, return-risk evaluation, professional advice, and government regulation"--
Risk as we now know it is a wholly new phenomenon, the by-product of our ever more complex and powerful technologies. In business, policy making, and in everyday life, it demands a new way of looking at technological and environmental uncertainty. In this definitive volume, four of the world's leading risk researchers present a fundamental critique of the prevailing approaches to understanding and managing risk - the 'rational actor paradigm'. They show how risk studies must incorporate the competing interests, values, and rationalities of those involved and find a balance of trust and acceptable risk. Their work points to a comprehensive and significant new theory of risk and uncertainty and of the decision making process they require. The implications for social, political, and environmental theory and practice are enormous. Winner of the 2000-2002 Outstanding Publication Award of the Section on Environment and Technology of the American Sociological Association
Risk as we now know it is a wholly new phenomenon, the by-product of our ever more complex and powerful technologies. In business, policy making, and in everyday life, it demands a new way of looking at technological and environmental uncertainty. In this definitive volume, four of the world's leading risk researchers present a fundamental critique of the prevailing approaches to understanding and managing risk - the 'rational actor paradigm'. They show how risk studies must incorporate the competing interests, values, and rationalities of those involved and find a balance of trust and acceptable risk. Their work points to a comprehensive and significant new theory of risk and uncertainty and of the decision making process they require. The implications for social, political, and environmental theory and practice are enormous. Winner of the 2000-2002 Outstanding Publication Award of the Section on Environment and Technology of the American Sociological Association
This book provides a comprehensive and accessible synthesis of Viscusi's 1996 Arne Ryde Memorial lectures on risk policy. In this volume, Viscusi explores the various forms of irrationality exemplified in individual risk behavior and the role government policy has played in institutionalizing these biases. He examines the implications for government policy of consumers and workers' risk beliefs and behavioral responses to risk. In addition to a critique of current risk analysis practices, he suggests strategies for rational risk management, including hazard warnings efforts, direct regulation, and liability as alternative modes of intervention.
Rational Risk Policy is based on Viscusi's Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures, delivered at Lund University in 1996. The organizing principle of these lectures is that the irrationality of individual decisions is often embodied in government regulations. Rather than overcoming the inadequacies in individual risk beliefs and behaviour, governmental regulations often institutionalize them. Viscusi examines how consumers and workers perceive risk and the implications of these risk beliefs and behavioural responses to risk for government policy. Hazard warnings efforts, direct regulation, and liability are among the alternative modes of intervention. The role of risk tradeoffs with respect to the value of life as well as the consequences of wasteful regulatory expenditures are considered in a discussion of riskrisk analysis. Rational Risk Policy also includes a critique of the risk analysis practices used by government agencies as well as a consideration of how liability and social insurance should be integrated into a rational risk management strategy.
The third CMR Workshop prov. ided the opportunity for a group of experts from the Industry, academia and the regulatory authorities to meet and discuss ways and means by which risk benefit decisions are made during the various stages of drug development. It became apparent from the discussions that took place in October 1985, at the CIBA Foundation, that decisions are often made with limited data and inadequate methodology. The conclusions drawn from the day's deliberations were as follows: 1. Current methodology for assessing risk and particularly benefits must be improved; 2. Safety must be assessed in association with benefits as it is ultimately the benefit/ risk ratio which should decide the future of medicines; 3. Risks from medicines must always be viewed in relation to the risks from untreated diseases. It seemed to be the consensus of the group that such a meeting was both useful and informative and, hopefully, the publication of these proceedings will stimulate further discussion in this important area which may improve the decision-making process in drug development. The Editors wish to thank the participants for contributing to the Work shop, together with Dr. Cyndy Lumley for providing the initial transcript of the meeting and Mrs Sheila Wright for producing the final version and for carrying out all the additional work that is entailed in producing such a publication. Professor S. R. Walker A. W.
Lara Buchak sets out a new account of rational decision-making in the face of risk. She argues that the orthodox view (expected utility theory) is too narrow, and suggests an alternative, more permissive theory: one that allows individuals to pay attention to the worst-case or best-case scenario, and vindicates the ordinary decision-maker.