A Fair Distribution of Responsibility for Climate Adaptation-Translating Principles of Distribution from an International to a Local Context

Persson, Erik; Eriksson, Kerstin; Knaggård, Åsa

doi:10.3390/philosophies6030068

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The principle of equal shares can, however, be interpreted in two different ways [22]. The deontological version, tested above, claims that the distribution of responsibility as such should be the/a basis for distribution.…”

Section: The Equal Shares Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little focus has been given to how responsibility for climate adaptation can be distributed fairly within a society [15,16]. Although there are many studies on how this might be achieved in an international context [17][18][19][20][21], these are not necessarily applicable to the national or subnational context [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the statements also covered a number of principles concerning how responsibility should be distributed in a fair way among different actors. The principles included in the statements were: equal shares, desert, need, ability, and efficiency[22,27] (see Table1for definitions). These are commonly advocated principles for distribution in general[28,29], and also discussed in academic literature on climate change mitigation and adaptation[17][18][19][20][21]30].All principles and their different versions were covered in the questionnaire.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For successful climate change adaptation, the distribution of responsibility within society is an important question. While the literature highlights the need for involving both public and private actors, little is still known of how citizens perceive their own and others’ responsibility, let alone the moral groundings for such perceptions. In this paper, we report the results of a survey regarding people’s attitudes towards different ways of distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. The survey was distributed to citizens in six Swedish municipalities and completed by 510 respondents. A large number of respondents wanted to assign responsibility for making decisions about and implementing adaptation measures to local governments, but also to property owners, whereas the national government was raised as responsible for setting decision boundaries and for financial support. The most preferred principles for a fair distribution of responsibility among the respondents were desert, ability, efficiency and need, while the principle of equal shares found less support. All principles received some support, indicating that it is necessary to consider several principles when distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. Compared to earlier studies, this study shows more nuanced perceptions on who should be responsible and on what moral grounds.

show abstract

Section: The Equal Shares Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will instead discuss the responsibility for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction. That is, we will discuss forward-looking responsibility [31,32,[36][37][38][39][40][41] (also known as prospective responsibility [42,43], projective responsibility [44], or ex ante responsibility [45,46]). 1 When we need to refer to the other kind of responsibility (that deals with the question of who should be blamed or praised for things that have already happened), we correspondingly call it 'backward-looking responsibility' (also known as 'retrospective responsibility' [49][50][51], 'outcome responsibility' [52], 'ex post responsibility' [45,46], or 'accountability' [44]).…”

Section: Some Initial Clarificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have therefore chosen to focus our investigation on theories for distribution that are influential in these discussions (see e.g. [40,41,60]). Each of these basic principles comes in different variants.…”

Section: Distribution Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of AI in our hands? To what extent are we as individuals morally responsible for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction?

Persson

Hedlund

2021

AI Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly influential in most people’s lives. This raises many philosophical questions. One is what responsibility we have as individuals to guide the development of AI in a desirable direction. More specifically, how should this responsibility be distributed among individuals and between individuals and other actors? We investigate this question from the perspectives of five principles of distribution that dominate the discussion about responsibility in connection with climate change: effectiveness, equality, desert, need, and ability. Since much is already written about these distributions in that context, we believe much can be gained if we can make use of this discussion also in connection with AI. Our most important findings are: (1) Different principles give different answers depending on how they are interpreted but, in many cases, different interpretations and different principles agree and even strengthen each other. If for instance ‘equality-based distribution’ is interpreted in a consequentialist sense, effectiveness, and through it, ability, will play important roles in the actual distributions, but so will an equal distribution as such, since we foresee that an increased responsibility of underrepresented groups will make the risks and benefits of AI more equally distributed. The corresponding reasoning is true for need-based distribution. (2) If we acknowledge that someone has a certain responsibility, we also have to acknowledge a corresponding degree of influence for that someone over the matter in question. (3) Independently of which distribution principle we prefer, ability cannot be dismissed. Ability is not fixed, however and if one of the other distributions is morally required, we are also morally required to increase the ability of those less able to take on the required responsibility.

show abstract

Expert responsibility in AI development

Hedlund

Persson

2022

AI & Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the responsibility of AI experts for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction. More specifically, the aim is to answer the following research question: To what extent are AI experts responsible in a forward-looking way for effects of AI technology that go beyond the immediate concerns of the programmer or designer? AI experts, in this paper conceptualised as experts regarding the technological aspects of AI, have knowledge and control of AI technology that non-experts do not have. Drawing on responsibility theory, theories of the policy process, and critical algorithm studies, we discuss to what extent this capacity, and the positions that these experts have to influence the AI development, make AI experts responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of the use of AI technology. We conclude that, as a professional collective, AI experts, to some extent, are responsible in a forward-looking sense for consequences of use of AI technology that they could foresee, but with the risk of increased influence of AI experts at the expense of other actors. It is crucial that a diversity of actors is included in democratic processes on the future development of AI, but for this to be meaningful, AI experts need to take responsibility for how the AI technology they develop affects public deliberation.

show abstract

A Fair Distribution of Responsibility for Climate Adaptation-Translating Principles of Distribution from an International to a Local Context

Cited by 5 publications

References 56 publications

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

The future of AI in our hands? To what extent are we as individuals morally responsible for guiding the development of AI in a desirable direction?

Expert responsibility in AI development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About