Risks & Consequences

Many risk-takers like to insist that there should be no limit on what they do because “it’s their business and everyone else should leave them alone”.  But does it not become a matter for other people too if the risk in question could be detrimental to their wellbeing?

Risk taking in the midst of this Covid-19 pandemic has reminded everyone how the behaviour of some can seriously endanger others.  Getting close to others without wearing a protective mask, coughing in proximity to others, turning down opportunities to receive the approved vaccine – can all spread a potentially deadly infection to others while remaining asymptomatic oneself.  Simply focusing on the risk to oneself is clearly inadequate when the probability of dire consequences for others cannot be morally ignored.

 

But risk taking is not just a problem in relation to an infectious disease.  It occurs in all spheres of life, and society needs to take a much closer look at the possible consequences and consider what protective action should be taken.

 

For example, when people get routinely drunk, drive without wearing a seatbelt, or gamble away funds others rely on, it is not just the direct harm they may cause others that is of concern, but the costs in terms of rescue and healthcare that they expect society to bear on their behalf.  Private insurance premiums go up for people who smoke or leave their property unsafe, but in public policy, risk-takers often expect others to foot the bill for their reckless behaviour.

 

It is time we adopt a more coherent approach to curtailing irresponsible risk taking.  This should have three components.  First, evidence-based information and transparency that will ensure people understand the implications of the risks they might take.  What this covers may range from excessive gambling and borrowing from loan sharks that will very probably lead to disastrous consequences for one and one’s family; to voting for politicians/policies that would bring social and economic ruin to one’s country.  If people truly understand the dangers they are risking, more of them might pull back from the brink.

 

Secondly, those who, despite knowing the negative consequences their risky activities could bring, persist with them, will need to be made responsible so they either desist or have to pay to cover the damages.  Anyone addicted to gambling could be required to put an increasingly large proportion of their bets towards an insurance scheme that would provide financial compensation if necessary, while reducing the amount going to the betting companies.  Corporations that wilfully pollute the environment should be made to pay for dealing with the damages caused.

 

Thirdly, there will be cases where the risks are so high and the potential harm so severe, that the activities in question should be stopped outright.  There is no reason why some self-styled ‘business genius’ should be able to keep borrowing money to start businesses that, after they have paid themselves a fortune, are wound up with countless workers and suppliers left without pay.  The same goes for financial institutions that take the savings from ordinary families and gamble the money on high risk lending that could (and has been found to) leave major shortfalls that either wipe out individuals’ savings or require public funds to bail them out.  Such activities should be outlawed.

 

Viewed against the background of great explorers and brave adventurers, risk-taking might be seen as something to be glorified.  But in truth, not all risk-taking is worthy of celebrating, and many are plainly wrong-headed and irredeemably harmful.  We need to see bad risk-taking for what it is, and bring in the necessary measures to curtail it.

Stop Censoring Censorship

When comedians mock their latest targets, artists unveil their convention-defying creations, right-wing rabble rousers demand acceptance from all speech platforms, hate mongers insist on their right to express themselves on social media, they all converge on an unreserved condemnation of censorship.

They invoke it as an unassailable principle – people must be allowed to say, show, express whatever they want, and any attempt to block them (whatever the reason) is deemed censorship, and must therefore be rejected.

If something is true and harmless, of course we should be ready to resist any move to prevent it from being put forward.  But it hardly follows that nothing can ever be legitimately deemed so harmful that its propagation should be halted.  This assumption that forbidding any expression is inherently and absolutely wrong must be questioned.

 

Suppose the following is about to happen:

 

·      Someone is going to distribute a leaflet on ‘20 ways to help your children’ to every household in the country, and the 20 ways listed are all widely recognised as harmful to children (e.g. hit them hard on the head when they disobey; make them drink bleach, etc.)

·      A town council has agreed to erect a public monument to celebrate Hitler’s murder of millions of people.

·      A photographer who managed to take pictures of the victims of a serial killer is going to hold an exhibition of those photographs to showcase the skills of the killer, despite the protest from the families of the victims.

·      Someone known for routinely lying about people from minority ethnic backgrounds is offered a regular television show to tell horror stories about minorities and why they should all be deported.

·      A group is organising a public march to name various people as responsible for the death of a child – without any evidence, and demand justice be obtained by any means.

 

Those who decry censorship may respond by either saying such expressions should be stopped but it is not censorship (in which case, they’re just playing with words); or affirming that nothing should be done to stop them (in which case, they’re playing with people’s lives).

 

Censorship should not be imposed lightly.  It needs justification, and it has to be proportionate.  But it cannot be dismissed as unjustifiable.  As individuals and as a society, we need to be protected from the vicious, the unscrupulous, and the deranged.  Undoubtedly there are cases where threats should be halted before serious harm is done.