| Title |
Nuclear Power is Neither Right Nor Wrong: The Case for a Tertium Datur in the Ethics of Technology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-013-9452-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafaela Hillerbrand, Martin Peterson |
| Abstract |
The debate over the civilian use of nuclear power is highly polarised. We argue that a reasonable response to this deep disagreement is to maintain that advocates of both camps should modify their positions. According to the analysis we propose, nuclear power is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong, but rather right and wrong to some degree. We are aware that this non-binary analysis of nuclear power is controversial from a theoretical point of view. Utilitarians, Kantians, and other moral theorists make sharp, binary distinctions between right and wrong acts. However, an important argument speaking in favour of our non-binary analysis is that it better reflects our considered intuitions about the ethical trade-offs we face in discussions of nuclear power. The aim of this article is to make this argument sharp by explaining how it can be rendered compatible with, and supported by, the Capability Approach, which is quickly becoming one of the most influential frameworks for thinking about human development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 26% |
| Engineering | 4 | 12% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Energy | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2014.
All research outputs
#19,539,805
of 24,037,100 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#840
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,676
of 198,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,037,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 198,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.