primarily a way to bring about a change in the world, it leaves a trace. This “mark”
inscribes the action in the world, making it an “archive” of the initial act. Therefore,
in addition to the intention that provided the motivation, an action can also be
evaluated against the “persisting configurations” that it brought about. This evaluation can only be carried out by third parties at a later date. This difficult task
involves retracing the path back to the initial action, which due to the complexity of
the world, may be extremely distant from its consequences. Such an approach
resonates with some of the problems inherent in actions carried out in extreme
situations, and offers a fruitful avenue for further research.
4 To Conclude: Ethics, a Way up and Out of Extreme
Situations, not a Set of Solutions
As promised, we raise many more questions than answers. Most of these questions
emerged during the workshop, and they range from the decision-making process in
high-risk technologies, to the question of how to determine who victims are. This
highlights the transverse nature of such questions and the role ethics may play in the
emergence of an interdisciplinary approach to major accidents and the management
of extreme situations.
The workshop examined the question of potential or actual victims, and this
appears to be a possible avenue for an ethical approach to major accidents. It leads
us to ask who the victims are, in the strongest sense. How—if at all—can they be
identified as victims of a specific accident raises a philosophical and social question? How should they be helped, either during the management of the event or
afterwards, through medical treatment or compensation? Finally, how should the
concept of the victim be defined, both in scientific terms and for decision-making
purposes? It is deeply anchored in the concept of solicitude and could offer a
heuristic approach to the examination of major accidents and the management of
extreme situations from an ethical perspective.
The question of individual action and responsibility opens a second door to
ethical reflection on extreme situations. Yoshida’s testimony on the management of
the Fukushima Daiichi accident shows that individuals were held both legally and
morally accountable for actions taken during extreme situations. As we have seen,
such judgments require that voluntary action is possible. This in turn requires a
radical shift in organizations and how individual actions and their contribution to
safety are considered. Ricoeur’s practical philosophy shows how ethics not only
help to develop a better understanding of what underlies the management of
extreme situation, but also open the way for actions that are more favorable to the
preservation of safety.
192
H. Blazsin
inscribes the action in the world, making it an “archive” of the initial act. Therefore,
in addition to the intention that provided the motivation, an action can also be
evaluated against the “persisting configurations” that it brought about. This evaluation can only be carried out by third parties at a later date. This difficult task
involves retracing the path back to the initial action, which due to the complexity of
the world, may be extremely distant from its consequences. Such an approach
resonates with some of the problems inherent in actions carried out in extreme
situations, and offers a fruitful avenue for further research.
4 To Conclude: Ethics, a Way up and Out of Extreme
Situations, not a Set of Solutions
As promised, we raise many more questions than answers. Most of these questions
emerged during the workshop, and they range from the decision-making process in
high-risk technologies, to the question of how to determine who victims are. This
highlights the transverse nature of such questions and the role ethics may play in the
emergence of an interdisciplinary approach to major accidents and the management
of extreme situations.
The workshop examined the question of potential or actual victims, and this
appears to be a possible avenue for an ethical approach to major accidents. It leads
us to ask who the victims are, in the strongest sense. How—if at all—can they be
identified as victims of a specific accident raises a philosophical and social question? How should they be helped, either during the management of the event or
afterwards, through medical treatment or compensation? Finally, how should the
concept of the victim be defined, both in scientific terms and for decision-making
purposes? It is deeply anchored in the concept of solicitude and could offer a
heuristic approach to the examination of major accidents and the management of
extreme situations from an ethical perspective.
The question of individual action and responsibility opens a second door to
ethical reflection on extreme situations. Yoshida’s testimony on the management of
the Fukushima Daiichi accident shows that individuals were held both legally and
morally accountable for actions taken during extreme situations. As we have seen,
such judgments require that voluntary action is possible. This in turn requires a
radical shift in organizations and how individual actions and their contribution to
safety are considered. Ricoeur’s practical philosophy shows how ethics not only
help to develop a better understanding of what underlies the management of
extreme situation, but also open the way for actions that are more favorable to the
preservation of safety.
192
H. Blazsin