<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Philosophy</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Philosophy</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Философия</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2302</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-8900</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">19326</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2302-2018-22-3-291-300</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>THE PROBLEM OF RESPONSIBILITY IN POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ПРОБЛЕМА ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ В ВЫСОКОТЕХНОЛОГИЧНОМ ОБЩЕСТВЕ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">THE PROBLEM OF PRECAUTION: NORMATIVE CONTEXT, GROUNDS FOR URGENCY, ALTERATIVE SOLUTIONS</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>ПРОБЛЕМА ПРЕДОСТОРОЖНОСТИ: НОРМАТИВНЫЙ КОНТЕКСТ, ИСТОКИ АКТУАЛЬНОСТИ, АЛЬТЕРНАТИВНЫЕ РЕШЕНИЯ</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Prokofiev</surname><given-names>A V</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Прокофьев</surname><given-names>Андрей Вячеславович</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>доктор философских наук, ведущий научный сотрудник сектора этики Института философии РАН</p></bio><email>avprok2006@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Institute of Philosophy of RAS</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Институт философии РАН</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2018-12-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>12</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 22, NO3 (2018)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 22, №3 (2018)</issue-title><fpage>291</fpage><lpage>300</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2018-09-21"><day>21</day><month>09</month><year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2018, Prokofiev A.V.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2018, Прокофьев А.В.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Prokofiev A.V.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Прокофьев А.В.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/philosophy/article/view/19326">https://journals.rudn.ru/philosophy/article/view/19326</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The purpose of the article is threefold. The first objective is to determine the general normative context where the problem of precaution arises. The second objective is to establish main factors turning it into a contemporary problem of the utmost importance. The third objective is to analyze alternative articulations of the precautionary normative logic and to assess their potential for implementation in practice. A moral agent faces the problem of precaution trying to fulfill basic moral requirement to prevent harm. He/she is anxious not to be accused of carelessness and negligence and thereby makes efforts to find some operational rules of proper precaution. In the recent condition of civilization the growing importance of the precautionary problem is connected with an increasing capacity of contemporary science and technology to cause a huge amount of harm that can not be compensated. The compensation is impossible in the case of rapidly developing global catastrophes. Beyond the catastrophic perspective irreversible harm is pervasive in the sphere where ongoing scientific, economic, and military activities have negative impact on natural environment and future generations. The precautionary normative logic is articulated in many different formulae of the precautionary principle. To implement it in practice, decision-makers should draw clear boundaries between the scope of precaution and the scope of cost-benefit analysis.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Данная статья нацелена на решение трех задач: а) выяснить общий нормативный контекст проблемы предосторожности, б) установить факторы, актуализирующие эту проблему в современном обществе, в) проанализировать способы артикуляции нормативной логики предосторожности и возможности их практического применения. Проблема предосторожности неизбежно возникает перед деятелем, который реализует требование «предотвращай вред» и задумывается над условиями предотвращения вреда. Ее актуализация в современную эпоху определяется радикальным ростом возможностей для возникновения некомпенсируемого вреда и необходимостью приспосабливать анализ выгод и затрат к условиям неопределенности. Основное затруднение, связанное с применением нормативной логики предосторожности, состоит в том, чтобы определить ограниченный круг практических вопросов, в котором она замещает собой анализ выгод и затрат.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>morality</kwd><kwd>practical ethics</kwd><kwd>problem of precaution</kwd><kwd>precautionary principle</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>мораль</kwd><kwd>практическая этика</kwd><kwd>проблема предосторожности</kwd><kwd>принцип предосторожности</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Apressyan R.G. Precautionary principle: Lecture. Available from: https://www.intuit.ru/studies/ courses/3477/719/lecture/20276. Assessed: April 6, 2018. (in Russ)</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Апресян Р.Г. Принцип предосторожности: лекция. Режим доступа: https://www.intuit.ru/ studies/courses/3477/719/lecture/20276. Дата обращения: 6.04.2018.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Apresyan R.G. The Sense of Morality. Morality: Diversity of Concepts and Meanings. A Festschrift for the 75-th Birthday of Abdusalam Guseynov. Moscow: Al'fa-M Publ.; 2014: 35—63. (in Russ)</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Апресян Р.Г. Смысл морали // Мораль. Разнообразие понятий и смыслов: К 75-летию А.А. Гусейнова. М.: Альфа-М, 2014. С. 35-63.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University Publ.4 1995. (in Russ)</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ролз Дж. Теория справедливости. Новосибирск: Изд-во Новосибирского ун-та, 1995.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Prokofiev A.V. The Protection of Future Generations’ Interests: Theory and Practice. Chelovek. 2013;5:5—20.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Прокофьев А.В. Защита интересов будущих поколений: теория и практика // Человек. 2013. № 5. С. 5-20.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ackerman F., Heinzerling L. Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press; 2004.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ackerman F., Heinzerling L. Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press, 2004.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ahteensuu M., Sandin P. The Precautionary Principle. Handbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012: 962—979.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ahteensuu M., Sandin P. The Precautionary Principle // Handbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. P. 962-979.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Beck U. World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2009.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Beck U. World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Gert B. Morality: Its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Gert B. Morality: Its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Munthe C. The price of precaution and the ethics of risk. Berlin; Springer 2011.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Munthe C. The price of precaution and the ethics of risk. Berlin: Springer 2011.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hansson S.O. The ethics of risk: Ethical analysis in an uncertain world. Basingstock: Palgrave; 2013.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hansson S.O. The ethics of risk: Ethical analysis in an uncertain world. Basingstock: Palgrave, 2013.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Heinzerling L. Discounting Life, Yale Law Journal. 1999;108(7):1911—1915.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Heinzerling L. Discounting Life // Yale Law Journal. 1999. Vol. 108. № 7. P. 1911-1915.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Tremmel J.C. A theory of intergenerational justice. London: Earthscan, 2009.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Tremmel J.C. A theory of intergenerational justice. London, 2009.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Steel D. Philosophy and precautionary principle: Science, evidence, and environmental policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Steel D. Philosophy and precautionary principle: Science, evidence, and environmental policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sunstein С.R. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Sunstein С.R. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Woodward R.T., Bishop R.C. How to decide when experts disagree: Uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy, Land Economics, 1997;73(4):492—507.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Woodward R.T., Bishop R.C. How to decide when experts disagree: Uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy // Land Economics. 1997. Vol. 73. N 4. P. 492-507.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list></back></article>
