Rationality, Expected Utility Theory and the Precautionary Principle

References

• Arkes, H., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, G. (2016). How bad is incoherence? Decision, 3(1), 20–39.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, N., Eckel, C., & Johnson, C. (2010). Inconsistency pays? Time-inconsistent subjects and EU violators earn more. MPRA Working Paper. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26589/
   Google Scholar
• Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Homo heuristicus and the bias-variance dilemma. In: J. Schulkin (Ed.), Action, perception and the brain: Adaptation and cephallic expression (pp. 68–91). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Broome, J. (1999). Ethics out of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, C. (2011). Two kinds of holism about values. The Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 456–463.
   Google Scholar
• DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915–1953.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2000, February 2). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001&from=EN
   Google Scholar
• FOE, ICTA & the ETC Group. (2012, March 13). Principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. Retrieved from http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/ae/9/2287/2/Principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (1985). Nuclear disarmament and moral certainty. Ethics, 95(3), 641–658.
   Google Scholar
• Harbo, T.-I. (2010). The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. European Law Journal, 16(2), 158–185.
   Google Scholar
• John, S. (2007). How to take deontological concerns seriously in risk–Cost–Benefit analysis: A re-interpretation of the precautionary principle. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 221–224.
   Google Scholar
• Manson, N. A. (2002). Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics, 24, 263–274.
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. (1986). Nuclear deterrence and future generations. In: A. Cohen & S. Lee (Eds.), Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity: The fundamental questions (pp. 319–339). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Möller, N, Hansson, S.O, & Peterson, M. (2006). Safety is more than the antonym of risk. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(4), 419–432.
   Google Scholar
• Munthe, C. (2011). The price of precaution and the ethics of risk. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2003). Transformative decision rules. Erkenntnis, 58(1), 71–85.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2006). The precautionary principle is incoherent. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 595–601.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2008). Non-Bayesian decision theory: Beliefs and desires as reasons for action. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2009). An introduction to decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Portmore, D. (2009). Consequentialization. Philosophy Compass, 4(2), 329–347.
   Google Scholar
• Randall, A. (2011). Risk and precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5(5), 889–907.
   Google Scholar
• Sandin, P. (2007). Common-sense precaution. In: T. Lewens (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 99–112). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, M. (2011). Holism, weight and undercutting. Noûs, 45(2), 328–344.
   Google Scholar
• Selgelid, M. J. (2016). Gain-of-function research: Ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 923–964.
   Google Scholar
• Shue, H. (2015). Uncertainty as the reason for action: Last opportunity and future climate disaster. Global Justice, 8(2), 86–103.
   Google Scholar
• Steel, D. (2013). The precautionary principle and the dilemma objection. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 16(3), 321–340.
   Google Scholar
• Steel, D. (2014). Philosophy and the precautionary principle: Science, evidence and environmental policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trouwborst, A. (2006). Precautionary rights and duties of states. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• UNEP. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163
   Google Scholar