In sum, I took my departure in the principle of utility in the form of negative utilitarianism. Considering humanity as whole, we are required to realise the least amount of harm. Together with the principle of universalisability it takes us a long way through the Swedish regulatory framework. But there are important non-utilitarian elements in this framework as well. They could be summarised in terms of other principles, namely 1. The principle of self-regard (ultimately echoing the categorical imperative that an individual is to be used as an end and not merely as a means to the welfare of others), justifying the interests of the present generation; 2. The minimal principle of justice (which obliges us not to threaten any person's - present or future - possibilities of life) justifying the minimising not only of collective dose, but also of risks for (future) individuals; 3. The weak principle of justice (which obliges us to use our natural resources in such a way that future generations can satisfy their basic needs), justifying the KASAM principle that a repository for nuclear waste should be designed so that it makes controls, corrective measures and retrieval unnecessary and so that it does not make controls, corrective measures and retrieval impossible; 4. The strong principle of justice (which requires that we use natural resources in such a way that future generations might achieve a quality of life equal to our own) requires that the present generations - benefiting from nuclear power - also take care of the nuclear waste and not put such burdens on future generations that might diminish their achieving a quality of life equal to ours (= a principle of responsibility/producer pays principle), and also justifying; 5. The non-mafiana principle, i.e. do not postpone until tomorrow what you can already do today.
展开▼
