Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Law and Philosophy Book Chapters and Sections
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: A Plea for Risk
Author(s): Ebert, Philip
Robertson, Simon
Contact Email:
Sponsor: Arts and Humanities Research Council
Citation: Ebert P & Robertson S (2013) A Plea for Risk. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 73, pp. 45-64.
Keywords: Risk, Mountaineering, Philosophy of Sport
Mountaineering Psychological aspects
Extreme sports
Risk-taking (Psychology)
Issue Date: Sep-2013
Date Deposited: 26-Jul-2013
Abstract: Mountaineering is a dangerous activity. For many mountaineers, part of its very attraction is the risk, the thrill of danger. Yet mountaineers are often regarded as reckless or even irresponsible for risking their lives. In this paper, we offer a defence of risk-taking in mountaineering. Our discussion is organised around the fact that mountaineers and non-mountaineers often disagree about how risky mountaineering really is. We hope to cast some light on the nature of this disagreement – and to argue that mountaineering may actually be worthwhile because of the risks it involves. Section 1 introduces the disagreement and, in doing so, separates out several different notions of risk. Sections 2–4 then consider some explanations of the disagreement, showing how a variety of phenomena can skew people’s risk judgements. Section 5 then surveys some recent statistics, to see whether these illuminate how risky mountaineering is. In light of these considerations, however, we suggest that the disagreement is best framed not simply in terms of how risky mountaineering is but whether the risks it does involve are justified. The remainder of the paper, sections 6–9, argues that risk-taking in mountaineering often is justified – and, moreover, that mountaineering can itself be justified (in part) by and because of the risks it involves.
Rights: Published in Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, Volume 73, October 2013, pp. 45-64, published by Cambridge University Press. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007.
DOI Link: 10.1017/S1358246113000271

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ApleaforRisk_published.pdfFulltext - Published Version523.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.