Stime di rischio e scelte responsabili

Abstract

Risk estimation is seen as the construction of a rational argument to support possible choices that a decision maker can make on possible preventive actions aimed at reducing the impact of a possible future event capable of producing effects that the decision maker himself considers negative. The rationality of this argument is guaranteed by the internal logical coherence of the argument, which can be judged ex-post only if clearly defined, starting from the use of the terms it uses. In this context, it becomes necessary to distinguish terms that refer to different aspects of risk estimation, eliminating possible ambiguities that could undermine a shared evaluation of the argument proposed in support of the choices made. Given the freedom attributed to the decision maker and the possible alternatives that the risk estimate itself implies, this cannot have a normative character, neither it can legitimize by itself the choice made by the decision maker. This must be taken into clear consideration especially regarding the imputability of the decision maker regarding the effects of the choice made.