‘The right to lead a flourishing life’

She teaches ethics at various TU departments, in order to increase awareness of the moral responsibilities that engineers have.

Sabine Roeser is a doctor of philosophy. Upon meeting the gregarious, fast-speaking, German-born Roeser, I immediately sensed I was dealing with someone highly intelligent and that I’d have to pay close attention to what she said. I took a gulp of water and began an interview that would have me thinking for days.

My first question was, rather predictably, “What do you do here?” Roeser smiled, then said: “I’m currently teaching an ethics class for Management of Technology students, and I supervise two PhD students in the philosophy department. My research is, generally, on ethics of risk. The focus is on technological risks, like with nuclear energy, or the unknown risks of nano-technology and genetic manipulation. My particular approach is that we need emotions to make good assessments of whether such risks are acceptable.”

“Emotions?” I asked, doubtfully. “Yes,” she replied, “in assessing the risks of development or implementing controversial technologies, we make distinctions between several kinds of judgments. First, we’re interested in what could be an unwanted effect, for example, the deaths of innocent people. This is a moral issue, and determining this requires emotions. Then there are quantitative issues, such as how many nuclear plants have had meltdowns. Emotions shouldn’t play a part here.”

After a slight pause, to make sure I was following her, she continued: “Many researchers mix up the moral and quantitative issues. But they should be kept separate. After collecting quantitative data comes the next step, making complex moral judgments. Nuclear meltdowns might be rare, but when they occur, the effects are enormous. So, is it worth it to use nuclear power? We cannot just use statistics alone to come to such moral insights; these moral insights should be at least partially based on emotion, in order to be practically rational.” Roeser said that while engineers and policy-makers might argue that emotions are subjective and distorting, psychological and sociological research has shown that most people use their emotions when making decisions: “I’d say that for a certain part of our rationality, namely our practical rationality, we need emotions to make the final evaluation of whether risks are morally acceptable.”
Legitimate concerns

Practical rationality is the way we come to decide things, such as whether to bike or take the bus to class, or what to wear to a party. This indeed involves emotion, as well as statistical evidence. I know it takes six to seven-and-a-half minutes to bike to class, which is three minutes shorter than when taking the bus, but my ultimate decision is based on whether I feel like biking to class or not. Yes, I felt like I was beginning to understand what Roeser was saying.

Or was I? Surely these weren’t decisions of any real moral importance? Roeser explained: “The things you mentioned only concern general practical decisions. Whereas moral decisions are a part of general practical decisions, emotions about the moral acceptability of risks are not just about such arbitrary preferences, but rather about legitimate concerns.”

“But the problem with technological risks, of course, is that there’s a lot of uncertainty involved. It’s not either conducting a risky activity or taking no risk whatsoever. For example, without animal testing, we might never find a cure for cancer; perhaps genetically modified food is the only way to prevent hunger in the third world. It’s not like this is an infallible recipe for making the right decision.”

Now that would be something: I imagined a perfect world, in which everybody always made the right decision. “What would your ideal world look like?” I prodded. “Ethics isn’t about this,” Roeser replied, laughing. “The real challenge in ethics is to think about what normal, everyday people should do in their lives. Right and wrong can be very complex and overwhelming at times . a reason to take into account many voices.”
Equal worth

Roeser is passionate about her research, but she also stressed the fulfillment of teaching: “Contact with students brings me back to the basics of what it’s all about. Engineering students will have influential positions later on and if I can somehow slightly increase their awareness of the moral responsibilities of their work, it would be very rewarding.”

Roeser also gave some insights to what it’s like to be one of the few women working in TU Delfts’ male-dominated environment: “Delft’s much more hierarchical, more traditional than other universities. In my professional life, I’ve never been treated differently because I was a woman until I came here! While I was doing my PhD, some people wouldn’t give me the time of day at meetings, thinking I must just be there to take notes. I do think that if you’re a woman here, you have to expose your qualities all the time, at least towards some people.

Equality runs deep with Roeser. She believes moral values are embedded in the world we live in: “These universal moral values include the right to lead a flourishing life, the right to autonomy and equality of all human beings. I have a deep feeling and conviction that all people have equal worth. I can’t prove it to you, but it’s just so obvious. It’s a given.”

I imagined a world in which Roeser’s universal moral values had been implemented and accepted, where everyone had the freedom to flourish, where everyone acknowledged that their life was worth just as much as anyone else’s – no more, no less. They say philosophy is for dreamers, but that just might be the perfect world.

Dr. Sabine Roeser. (Photo:Hans Stakelbeek/FMAX)

Sabine Roeser is a doctor of philosophy. Upon meeting the gregarious, fast-speaking, German-born Roeser, I immediately sensed I was dealing with someone highly intelligent and that I’d have to pay close attention to what she said. I took a gulp of water and began an interview that would have me thinking for days.

My first question was, rather predictably, “What do you do here?” Roeser smiled, then said: “I’m currently teaching an ethics class for Management of Technology students, and I supervise two PhD students in the philosophy department. My research is, generally, on ethics of risk. The focus is on technological risks, like with nuclear energy, or the unknown risks of nano-technology and genetic manipulation. My particular approach is that we need emotions to make good assessments of whether such risks are acceptable.”

“Emotions?” I asked, doubtfully. “Yes,” she replied, “in assessing the risks of development or implementing controversial technologies, we make distinctions between several kinds of judgments. First, we’re interested in what could be an unwanted effect, for example, the deaths of innocent people. This is a moral issue, and determining this requires emotions. Then there are quantitative issues, such as how many nuclear plants have had meltdowns. Emotions shouldn’t play a part here.”

After a slight pause, to make sure I was following her, she continued: “Many researchers mix up the moral and quantitative issues. But they should be kept separate. After collecting quantitative data comes the next step, making complex moral judgments. Nuclear meltdowns might be rare, but when they occur, the effects are enormous. So, is it worth it to use nuclear power? We cannot just use statistics alone to come to such moral insights; these moral insights should be at least partially based on emotion, in order to be practically rational.” Roeser said that while engineers and policy-makers might argue that emotions are subjective and distorting, psychological and sociological research has shown that most people use their emotions when making decisions: “I’d say that for a certain part of our rationality, namely our practical rationality, we need emotions to make the final evaluation of whether risks are morally acceptable.”
Legitimate concerns

Practical rationality is the way we come to decide things, such as whether to bike or take the bus to class, or what to wear to a party. This indeed involves emotion, as well as statistical evidence. I know it takes six to seven-and-a-half minutes to bike to class, which is three minutes shorter than when taking the bus, but my ultimate decision is based on whether I feel like biking to class or not. Yes, I felt like I was beginning to understand what Roeser was saying.

Or was I? Surely these weren’t decisions of any real moral importance? Roeser explained: “The things you mentioned only concern general practical decisions. Whereas moral decisions are a part of general practical decisions, emotions about the moral acceptability of risks are not just about such arbitrary preferences, but rather about legitimate concerns.”

“But the problem with technological risks, of course, is that there’s a lot of uncertainty involved. It’s not either conducting a risky activity or taking no risk whatsoever. For example, without animal testing, we might never find a cure for cancer; perhaps genetically modified food is the only way to prevent hunger in the third world. It’s not like this is an infallible recipe for making the right decision.”

Now that would be something: I imagined a perfect world, in which everybody always made the right decision. “What would your ideal world look like?” I prodded. “Ethics isn’t about this,” Roeser replied, laughing. “The real challenge in ethics is to think about what normal, everyday people should do in their lives. Right and wrong can be very complex and overwhelming at times . a reason to take into account many voices.”
Equal worth

Roeser is passionate about her research, but she also stressed the fulfillment of teaching: “Contact with students brings me back to the basics of what it’s all about. Engineering students will have influential positions later on and if I can somehow slightly increase their awareness of the moral responsibilities of their work, it would be very rewarding.”

Roeser also gave some insights to what it’s like to be one of the few women working in TU Delfts’ male-dominated environment: “Delft’s much more hierarchical, more traditional than other universities. In my professional life, I’ve never been treated differently because I was a woman until I came here! While I was doing my PhD, some people wouldn’t give me the time of day at meetings, thinking I must just be there to take notes. I do think that if you’re a woman here, you have to expose your qualities all the time, at least towards some people.

Equality runs deep with Roeser. She believes moral values are embedded in the world we live in: “These universal moral values include the right to lead a flourishing life, the right to autonomy and equality of all human beings. I have a deep feeling and conviction that all people have equal worth. I can’t prove it to you, but it’s just so obvious. It’s a given.”

I imagined a world in which Roeser’s universal moral values had been implemented and accepted, where everyone had the freedom to flourish, where everyone acknowledged that their life was worth just as much as anyone else’s – no more, no less. They say philosophy is for dreamers, but that just might be the perfect world.

Dr. Sabine Roeser. (Photo:Hans Stakelbeek/FMAX)