Document Type
Article
Publication Date
Spring 2016
Abstract
Selfish utilitarianism, neo-classical economics, the directive of short-term income maximization, and the decision tool of cost-benefit analysis fail to protect our species from the significant risks of too much consumption, pollution, or population. For a longer-term survival, humanity needs to employ more than cost-justified precaution.
This article argues that, at the global level, and by extension at all levels of government, we need to replace neo-classical economics with filters for safety and feasibility to regulate against significant risk. For significant risks, especially those that are irreversible, we need decision tools that will protect humanity at all scales. This article describes both standards, their operations, and their interoperability. Further, it defends feasible risk reduction as an effective decision and regulatory tool.
Keywords
Risk, law and economics, markets, environment, decision filters, regulation, discounting, incommensurability, consent, moral fairness, subjectivity, maximization, irreversibility, precautionary principle, feasible risk reduction, safe level of risk imposition
Repository Citation
Draper, John William, "Human Survival, Risk, and Law: Considering Risk Filters to Replace Cost-Benefit Analysis" (2016). Librarian Scholarship at Penn Law. 11.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/librarian_scholarship/11
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Macroeconomics Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Political Economy Commons, Risk Analysis Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons
Publication Citation
27 Fordham Envtl L. Rev. 301 (2016).