1 Introduction
This book and the underlying workshop, entitled “Becoming Resilient in Extreme
Situations: A New Paradigm of Nuclear Safety”, bring together scientists from
Europe, Japan and the United States, from disciplines as diverse as anthropology,
sociology, history, philosophy, epidemiology, physics, engineering and biology.
Such heterogeneity raises the question of what could possibly unite us, and
whether we would be able to find common ground. The topic definitely is not
enough, especially one as complex as the collapse of a nuclear power plant following a tsunami. The issues are so complex that each discipline alone would find it
difficult to reach scientific certainty, or even consensus. If even this initial level of
agreement is not guaranteed, it seems fair to question the ability of a multidisciplinary group to find common ground.
However, there is one thread that seems to have run throughout the
workshop. Either explicitly or implicitly, the question of ethics has filled the air, and
occasionally fueled debates. At this stage we use the term “ethics” in a broad sense;
it refers to the set of moral principles guiding human (individual and collective)
action, which determine what is acceptable, i.e. respectful of human nature (that of
the actor and that of those potentially touched by their actions). Diverse ethical
questions, ranging from the victim’s identity to evacuation-related decisions and
public engagement with scientific knowledge have surfaced. We must not forget
that under sophisticated concepts such as “resilience” or “extreme situations” lie
more basic aspects of safety, i.e. respect for the humanity of those impacted by the
management of extreme situations, either as victims or as actors. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to argue that an ethical framework could provide some common ground
for our multidisciplinary efforts, forming a “dictionary” that we can use to translate
[2] individual standpoints into a shared language.
Here, we sum up and put into perspective the most pressing ethical issues that
were raised during the workshop. We raise many questions, but answer few, if any
at all. Nevertheless, hopefully we show that this lack of answers does not render the
exercise useless. Rather, we endeavor to show that an ethical perspective on safety
and the management of extreme situations not only provides a moral safeguard; it
also offers a very practical guide for individual and collective action. To achieve
this, we reflect on the management of the Fukushima Daiichi accident through the
prism of “practical reason”. The concept, which first appeared in the work of
Aristotle [9], reappears in the work of Kant [8], and more contemporarily, Paul
Ricoeur [11]. We use the work of the latter to illustrate the heuristics of ethics for
safe action and the management of extreme situations.
186
H. Blazsin
This book and the underlying workshop, entitled “Becoming Resilient in Extreme
Situations: A New Paradigm of Nuclear Safety”, bring together scientists from
Europe, Japan and the United States, from disciplines as diverse as anthropology,
sociology, history, philosophy, epidemiology, physics, engineering and biology.
Such heterogeneity raises the question of what could possibly unite us, and
whether we would be able to find common ground. The topic definitely is not
enough, especially one as complex as the collapse of a nuclear power plant following a tsunami. The issues are so complex that each discipline alone would find it
difficult to reach scientific certainty, or even consensus. If even this initial level of
agreement is not guaranteed, it seems fair to question the ability of a multidisciplinary group to find common ground.
However, there is one thread that seems to have run throughout the
workshop. Either explicitly or implicitly, the question of ethics has filled the air, and
occasionally fueled debates. At this stage we use the term “ethics” in a broad sense;
it refers to the set of moral principles guiding human (individual and collective)
action, which determine what is acceptable, i.e. respectful of human nature (that of
the actor and that of those potentially touched by their actions). Diverse ethical
questions, ranging from the victim’s identity to evacuation-related decisions and
public engagement with scientific knowledge have surfaced. We must not forget
that under sophisticated concepts such as “resilience” or “extreme situations” lie
more basic aspects of safety, i.e. respect for the humanity of those impacted by the
management of extreme situations, either as victims or as actors. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to argue that an ethical framework could provide some common ground
for our multidisciplinary efforts, forming a “dictionary” that we can use to translate
[2] individual standpoints into a shared language.
Here, we sum up and put into perspective the most pressing ethical issues that
were raised during the workshop. We raise many questions, but answer few, if any
at all. Nevertheless, hopefully we show that this lack of answers does not render the
exercise useless. Rather, we endeavor to show that an ethical perspective on safety
and the management of extreme situations not only provides a moral safeguard; it
also offers a very practical guide for individual and collective action. To achieve
this, we reflect on the management of the Fukushima Daiichi accident through the
prism of “practical reason”. The concept, which first appeared in the work of
Aristotle [9], reappears in the work of Kant [8], and more contemporarily, Paul
Ricoeur [11]. We use the work of the latter to illustrate the heuristics of ethics for
safe action and the management of extreme situations.
186
H. Blazsin