The word ‘decision’ typically refers to the “end of the deliberation in a voluntary
act that results in the choice of an action”.
1 The meaning given to each of these
terms varies according to different schools of thought. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics, the decision relates to the available resources needed to reach a given,
desirable, conclusion, while Cartesians (e.g. René Descartes in his Metaphysical
Meditations, 1641) would argue that without Circe’s advice, Odysseus was taking a
decision that was beyond his ability to understand and he therefore did not choose.
Leibniz argues in his Theodicy (1710) that understanding is not a necessity—it only
provides a guide—and that the decision exists only through the effort of action. In
terms of expected utility theory [1], Odysseus rationally opted for the path that
minimized the maximum damage.
Beyond these considerations, if the sacrifice of companions can be made
acceptable, it must be integrated into a social and symbolic universe that gives it
meaning. It is the will of the gods that allows Odysseus to return to his kingdom,
which places him above other men. Of course, nowadays Man tends to be emancipated from the gods and can think for himself. He decides after careful reflection
on causes, which “must always be mixed with chance in order to form a basis for
reasoning”.
2 However, despite this distancing that is at the heart of Technology, the
human being must still find meaning in their actions.
In his testimony [2], the Director of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant shows
how operators, who were obliged to decide between the survival of some and the
sacrifice of others, gave meaning to such decisions. Some of their critical decisions
are set out below (Sect. 2). The inability of current theories to account for the
magnitude of such decisions (Sect. 3) leads us to introduce the concept of ‘projected time’ (Sect. 4), and to explore mechanisms for the development of meaning
in extreme situations (Sect. 5).
2 Fukushima Daiichi: Faulty Decision-Making?
It has become normal to describe the Fukushima accident as the result of poor
decisions or a failure to act.
3 In particular, the nuclear community has recognised
that the accident could have been avoided through appropriate prevention measures.
This would have entailed raising the height of the dykes that surrounded the site and
protected it against waves following the results of numerical simulations, conducted
in 2008, which indicated the potential for flooding. However, a consensus needs to
be reached on the usefulness of such information: TEPCO indicated that it found
1
Source: Dictionnaire culturel, A. Rey, Paris, Le Robert (2005).
2
D. Hume, Of the Understanding. A Treatise of Human Nature. Book I, 1739.
3
The Japanese Parliamentary Commission investigating the accident concluded that it was a
‘man-made disaster’ [3].
170
S. Travadel
act that results in the choice of an action”.
1 The meaning given to each of these
terms varies according to different schools of thought. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics, the decision relates to the available resources needed to reach a given,
desirable, conclusion, while Cartesians (e.g. René Descartes in his Metaphysical
Meditations, 1641) would argue that without Circe’s advice, Odysseus was taking a
decision that was beyond his ability to understand and he therefore did not choose.
Leibniz argues in his Theodicy (1710) that understanding is not a necessity—it only
provides a guide—and that the decision exists only through the effort of action. In
terms of expected utility theory [1], Odysseus rationally opted for the path that
minimized the maximum damage.
Beyond these considerations, if the sacrifice of companions can be made
acceptable, it must be integrated into a social and symbolic universe that gives it
meaning. It is the will of the gods that allows Odysseus to return to his kingdom,
which places him above other men. Of course, nowadays Man tends to be emancipated from the gods and can think for himself. He decides after careful reflection
on causes, which “must always be mixed with chance in order to form a basis for
reasoning”.
2 However, despite this distancing that is at the heart of Technology, the
human being must still find meaning in their actions.
In his testimony [2], the Director of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant shows
how operators, who were obliged to decide between the survival of some and the
sacrifice of others, gave meaning to such decisions. Some of their critical decisions
are set out below (Sect. 2). The inability of current theories to account for the
magnitude of such decisions (Sect. 3) leads us to introduce the concept of ‘projected time’ (Sect. 4), and to explore mechanisms for the development of meaning
in extreme situations (Sect. 5).
2 Fukushima Daiichi: Faulty Decision-Making?
It has become normal to describe the Fukushima accident as the result of poor
decisions or a failure to act.
3 In particular, the nuclear community has recognised
that the accident could have been avoided through appropriate prevention measures.
This would have entailed raising the height of the dykes that surrounded the site and
protected it against waves following the results of numerical simulations, conducted
in 2008, which indicated the potential for flooding. However, a consensus needs to
be reached on the usefulness of such information: TEPCO indicated that it found
1
Source: Dictionnaire culturel, A. Rey, Paris, Le Robert (2005).
2
D. Hume, Of the Understanding. A Treatise of Human Nature. Book I, 1739.
3
The Japanese Parliamentary Commission investigating the accident concluded that it was a
‘man-made disaster’ [3].
170
S. Travadel