Varieties of risk

Philip Ebert, Martin Smith, Ian Durbach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The notion of risk plays a central role in economics, finance, health, psychology, law and elsewhere, and is prevalent in managing challenges and resources in day-to-day life. In recent work, Duncan Pritchard (2015, 2016) has argued against the orthodox probabilistic conception of risk on which the risk of a hypothetical scenario is determined by how probable it is, and in favour of a modal conception on which the risk of a hypothetical scenario is determined by how modally close it is. In this article,we use Pritchard’s discussion as a springboard for a more wide-ranging discussion of the notion of risk. We introduce three different conceptions of risk: the standard probabilistic conception, Pritchard’s modal conception, and a normalcy conception that is new (though it has some precursors in the psychological literature on risk perception). Ultimately, we argue that the modal conception is ill-suited to the roles that a notion of risk is required to play and explore the prospects for a form of pluralism about risk, embracing both the probabilistic and the normalcy conceptions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)432-455
JournalPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research
Volume101
Issue number2
Early online date9 May 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Varieties of risk'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this