2 The Management of Extreme Situations, Multiple
Dilemmas
Broadly speaking, the application of ethics to major accidents and the management
of extreme situations leads to a focus on the relationship between people (both
individuals and collectives) and these events.
During the workshop, the concept of the victim (which makes the relationship
between people and the accident explicit) emerged as a heuristic that united the
various ethical questions that were raised. For instance, how should the public (who
are all potential victims of major accidents) be taken into account, and involved in
decisions that may impact them at some point? As major accidents unfold, how do
we determine what truly helps victims, and what is in their best interest? Should
such a “best interest” be acted upon, even if victims do not give their consent?
Finally after an accident has occurred, who should be considered as a victim? How
can victims be recognized as such—and ultimately, be compensated for their loss,
assuming that such compensation is possible?
One important issue that was raised is that of a mediator who arbitrates between
victims and the accident. Such a mediator is necessary to establish a relationship
between people and what has happened to them. This relationship is a prerequisite
for the evaluation of the post-accident situation and attempts to restore harmony,
from which a new cycle can begin. The question becomes even more difficult when
one looks at non-human victims (i.e. nature), that have no voice to express the
damage it has suffered and where it may not be possible to restore harmony.
During the workshop, the Sorites paradox
1 was used to illustrate the immense
difficulty of giving an identity to victims of major accidents. This is not only a
question of the number of victims: tens of thousands could be named. But, for
example, who should be considered as a victim of the Chernobyl accident, where
millions were exposed to very small doses of radiation? If someone lives in an area
that was affected by radiation from Chernobyl and develops cancer, how can we
determine whether s/he is a victim of the Chernobyl accident? This philosophical
argument is supported by epidemiology, which highlights the difficulty of correlating radiation maps with actual damage to human health. Together, these issues
question the ability of traditional models to shed heuristic and instrumental light on
phenomena that are as complex as major accidents.
The issue of traditional models was only one way in which the relevance of
current scientific approaches to major accidents was questioned. Other issues
concerned how to establish a relationship between scientists and the public, and
how to make scientific knowledge available to less-expert audiences and include
them in decisions that may ultimately disrupt their life. Consequently, public
1
The Sorites paradox, also called the “little-by-little paradox” highlights the difficulty that arises
from indeterminate or fuzzy boundaries. Using the concept of the “heap”, it shows that if one takes
grains out one by one, it is impossible to establish which grain was the limit that turned the heap
into a “non-heap”.
An Ethical Perspective on Extreme Situations …
187
Dilemmas
Broadly speaking, the application of ethics to major accidents and the management
of extreme situations leads to a focus on the relationship between people (both
individuals and collectives) and these events.
During the workshop, the concept of the victim (which makes the relationship
between people and the accident explicit) emerged as a heuristic that united the
various ethical questions that were raised. For instance, how should the public (who
are all potential victims of major accidents) be taken into account, and involved in
decisions that may impact them at some point? As major accidents unfold, how do
we determine what truly helps victims, and what is in their best interest? Should
such a “best interest” be acted upon, even if victims do not give their consent?
Finally after an accident has occurred, who should be considered as a victim? How
can victims be recognized as such—and ultimately, be compensated for their loss,
assuming that such compensation is possible?
One important issue that was raised is that of a mediator who arbitrates between
victims and the accident. Such a mediator is necessary to establish a relationship
between people and what has happened to them. This relationship is a prerequisite
for the evaluation of the post-accident situation and attempts to restore harmony,
from which a new cycle can begin. The question becomes even more difficult when
one looks at non-human victims (i.e. nature), that have no voice to express the
damage it has suffered and where it may not be possible to restore harmony.
During the workshop, the Sorites paradox
1 was used to illustrate the immense
difficulty of giving an identity to victims of major accidents. This is not only a
question of the number of victims: tens of thousands could be named. But, for
example, who should be considered as a victim of the Chernobyl accident, where
millions were exposed to very small doses of radiation? If someone lives in an area
that was affected by radiation from Chernobyl and develops cancer, how can we
determine whether s/he is a victim of the Chernobyl accident? This philosophical
argument is supported by epidemiology, which highlights the difficulty of correlating radiation maps with actual damage to human health. Together, these issues
question the ability of traditional models to shed heuristic and instrumental light on
phenomena that are as complex as major accidents.
The issue of traditional models was only one way in which the relevance of
current scientific approaches to major accidents was questioned. Other issues
concerned how to establish a relationship between scientists and the public, and
how to make scientific knowledge available to less-expert audiences and include
them in decisions that may ultimately disrupt their life. Consequently, public
1
The Sorites paradox, also called the “little-by-little paradox” highlights the difficulty that arises
from indeterminate or fuzzy boundaries. Using the concept of the “heap”, it shows that if one takes
grains out one by one, it is impossible to establish which grain was the limit that turned the heap
into a “non-heap”.
An Ethical Perspective on Extreme Situations …
187