The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production

Abstract

This paper reflects on the various possible nuclear power production methods from an ethical perspective. The production and consumption of nuclear power give rise to the problem of intergenerational justice; in other words, we are depleting a nonrenewable resource in the form of uranium while the radiotoxic waste that is generated carries very long-term potential burdens. I argue that the morally desirable option should therefore be to seek to safeguard the interests of future generations. The present generation has at least two duties with regard to posterity: (1) not to jeopardize the safety and security of future generations or impose any harm upon them and (2) to sustain future well-being insofar as that is possible with the available energy resources. These duties are presented as pluralist prima facie duties (or duty-imposing reasons) thus implying that they could well be overruled by morally more compelling duties. If we are unable to fulfill both these prima facie duties simultaneously, it should be particularly the duty not to impose harm on posterity that should be the leading incentive behind nuclear power production. This supports the arguments in favor of the introduction of a new fuel cycle (partitioning and transmutation) that can substantially reduce the waste lifetime and therefore also potential future burdens. However, the further development and application of this scientifically proven but not yet industrialized fuel cycle give rise to additional burdens for contemporaries. This paper examines the extent of the moral stringency of the no harm duty sought for situations in which future interest should guide us in our choosing of a certain technology.

Ethics of Nuclear Power: How to Understand Sustainability in the Nuclear Debate

“…Elsewhere I argue that the proposed distinction must urge us to reconsider other waste management possibilities that could be used to help reduce waste lifetime and potential future burdens (Taebi, Forthcoming). 9 This argument is extensively defended elsewhere (Taebi, 2011). are required to make all of this happen. Indeed, these considerations have always been crucial to policy-making and will most probably always remain so.…”

“…Behnam Taebi (2011). Ethics of Nuclear Power: How to Understand Sustainability in the Nuclear Debate, Nuclear Power -Deployment, Operation and Sustainability, Dr. Pavel Tsvetkov (Ed.…”

Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy: Escaping the Dichotomy

“…Some scholars argued that we only have a positive intergenerational duty with a limited temporal reach (e.g., [37]), while other scholars defend a temporally extended negative duty to refrain from actions that could be harmful for future generations (e.g., [38]). Again others have defended both a negative and positive duty with varying temporal reaches (e.g., [39]); the morally desirable option should then be formulated when we consider these duties and the extent of their moral stringency [40]. We build on the latter line of reasoning by arguing that for nuclear energy, safety, security, and environmental benevolence-which are the values associated with the no harm duty-should be ensured for both close and remote future generations, while resource durability and economic viability-associated with the duty to sustain well-being-have a shorter temporal reach and should only be warranted for close future generations.…”

Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability

“…For example, do we have a moral obligation to provide benefits for or prevent losses to future generations, if that comes at a cost to ourselves? (24)(25)(26)(27)(28), 7 Fourth, a risky technology might be accepted for reasons that are morally wrong. This issue regularly arises in discussions of siting, and in connection with the issue of compensating local communities.…”