Security and Distribution, or Should You Care about Merely Possible Losses?

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Well-being
• Risk Assessment
• Environmental Ethics

Background:

• Jonathan Herington posits that potential loss of basic goods, not just actual loss, impacts well-being.
• This perspective introduces 'security' as a value diminished by the mere risk of losing access to necessities.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the claim that the risk of losing basic goods sufficiently lowers well-being.
• To examine the justification for introducing 'security' as a distinct value based on risk.
• To address inaccuracies in the interpretation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) risk categories and cited social science research.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
• Critical review of existing literature on well-being and risk.
• Analysis of specific claims regarding IPCC risk classifications and social science data.

Main Results:

• The sufficiency of risk for diminishing well-being, as argued by Herington, is contested.
• The introduction of 'security' as a value solely based on risk is questioned.
• Potential misinterpretations of IPCC risk categories and supporting social science research are identified.

Conclusions:

• The argument that mere risk to basic goods diminishes well-being requires further justification.
• A more nuanced approach to understanding well-being, risk, and security is necessary.
• Accuracy in interpreting scientific risk assessments and social science is crucial for ethical and policy discussions.