2.2. Philosophical Perspective

So, we have to help each other to protect as our self from the threat of hazard; from the threat of risk and then we have hierarchical okay, they believe that nature can be exploited freely but there are certain rules, a particular way they define there is a limit of it, okay because this limit is put because they have a very strict authority so, the authorities or the higher people those who have or the Kings or the top people they know how to do it.

This chunk introduces the idea that society shares the responsibility of managing risks and hazards. It highlights a hierarchical perspective where authority figures (like kings or experts) define the boundaries of nature's exploitation. This implies that while nature can be used for human benefit, there are limits enforced by these authorities to prevent over-exploitation.

Consider a farmer using land to grow crops. The farmer knows certain practices are sustainable, such as rotating crops, while others may lead to soil depletion. Just like a farmer learns rules about land use, society learns rules about managing natural resources based on expert advice.

So, they are the most vulnerable so here, we look at the attitude of 2 risk; one is individualistic, the fear of risk that would limit the market and constraints their ability to trade freely. Egalitarian; use the threat of catastrophic risk to generate solidarity, for example, global warming. Hierarchists fear risk that would upset the ranking of people okay. For example; crime or social deviance.

This chunk outlines various societal attitudes towards risk: individualists are focused on how risk limits personal freedoms, egalitarians use the awareness of catastrophic risks to promote collective action (like addressing global warming), and hierarchists fear risks that could disrupt social structures. Understanding these perspectives helps us see how risk is perceived differently in society.

Imagine a community facing the threat of climate change; individuals may worry about how it affects their personal lives (individualistic view), while community leaders may rally public efforts to tackle it together (egalitarian view). Meanwhile, a strict community may be apprehensive about crime, fearful of how it could shake their social order (hierarchist view).

This idea was then little further developed by Steve Rayner, he was talking about polythetic concept of risk and that in generally, we consider risk is the probability of an adverse event and the magnitude of its consequence right, something will happen, an adverse event will happen and it has some consequences.

Steve Rayner introduces a polythetic concept of risk, suggesting that risk isn't simply defined by probability and consequences. Instead, it's about perceptions that can vary from person to person and situation to situation. This complex view of risk recognizes that it cannot be pinned down to a single definition.

Think about the fear of flying; some people see it as highly risky due to its perceived danger, while others view it as safe because of statistics showing low accident rates. Both perspectives illustrate how risk is not just about numbers but also about personal beliefs and experiences.

For example, we have the game here; 3, 4 games, one is and the cricket and in the soccer and the chess and solitaire okay so, in the first part they all consider to be a game but they have very less similarities with each other...

Rayner explains that like games, risk doesn't have a one-size-fits-all definition. Various games have different rules and objectives, challenging the notion that there must be common features to define something. This indicates that risk, too, varies by context and cannot easily be categorized.

Consider sports; soccer and chess are both games but play out very differently: one is team-oriented and the other is strategic for individuals. Similarly, risk can manifest uniquely across different scenarios, making it complex and multifaceted.

So, he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC; trust, liability and consent okay.

Rayner proposes that the traditional view of risk (probability and magnitude) is not enough; we must also consider trust, liability, and consent in risk management. This means that how we engage with risks involves not only objective measures but also social and ethical factors that govern relationships and responsibilities.

In the context of a community planning a new nuclear power plant, decision-makers must communicate effectively about risks. They have to build trust with the public, address who will take liability in case of failures, and ensure that all parties consent to the risks presented, recognizing that these relational aspects are crucial to effective risk management.

--