Joint VoR-RoR Workshop on Risk and Recklessness
The workshop features a diverse selection of philosophers and legal theorists working on questions related to risk, recklessness, and the relation between the two. The workshop will feature both short talks, and pre-read papers. More information is available on the workshop page (http:/claire-field.com/events).
You can register to receive the Zoom link and pre-read papers here:
https://ucl.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0pfuisqDwtEtyuBEya5D58PxiIXwJKHvp-
Thursday 22nd April (BST)
1-2 David Prendergast “Distinguishing Recklessness from Negligence in Criminal Law”
Respondent: David Campbell
2.30-3.30 Martin Smith “Rights and the Ethics of Risk Imposition”
Respondent: Claire Hogg
4-5 Alexander Greenberg “Culpability, Consciousness, and Carrying on Regardless”
Friday 23rd April
9-10 Johanna Thoma “Merely Means Paternalist? Prospect Theory and ‘Debiased’ Welfare Analysis”
Respondent: Petronella Randell
10.30-11.30 Joseph Bowen “Rights: Facts, Evidence, or Beliefs?”
Respondent: Dylan Balfour
12-1 Philip Ebert “Gratuitous Risk: Perceived Danger and Recklessness Judgements about Outdoor Sports Participants”
Please make sure you register to receive the Zoom link, as well as the link to the pre-read papers.
School Outreach Activity: “Why how we assess risk and evidence matters”
i) How should we evaluate risk?
ii) How do we tend to evaluate risk?
iii) Why how we assess risk matters?
After learning about the basic principles of probability, as well as the cognitive biases that often underpin our risk judgments, the students discussed why it's important to be vigilant in how we perceive and assess risk.
To use an example, Giada asked the students to consider conspiracy theories they found on the internet, and discussed ways in which believing in conspiracy theories can be problematic not only from an epistemic point of view, but from a practical and ethical perspective as well. For instance, students reflected on how the spreading of conspiracy theories could have the effect of undermining rational debate and fostering mistrust in scientific communities. The lectures were followed by a lively discussion with the students, who were able to think about how they engage with social media, and how they consume information on the internet. Finally, in line with the spirit of the Varieties of Risk Project, the students discussed how our emotional response to risk, despite often irrational, might be able to indicate us what we care about the most.
These series of lectures were officially acknowledged as part of the high-school's 36 hours of Civic Education, compulsory in every Italian School.