Risk discourse retroactively moralizes outcomes whose causality it denies beforehand

Evidence

As long as it can be shown that risks could have been better managed—by diversification, better models, better rules, better institutions, better professionals—the loss is morally justified. The retrospective argument that risk could have been better managed becomes the moral justification for the losses of everyone involved … the risk management discourse enables us to simultaneously celebrate the indeterminacy of outcomes and to retrospectively moralize these outcomes; to deny a singular causality before an outcome materializes and to attribute a moral causality after an outcome materializes. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 342

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the legal concept of ex-post versus ex-ante justification, and to how institutional design literatures treat accountability after failures. — connects to: Speculation’s moral triumph over gambling rested on discursive framing rather than underlying imagination — Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou, Speculative Communities: Living with…, 616; Risk management is a mythological construct for manipulating cultural precariousness — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 234; The discourse of risk retroactively legitimizes any market outcome. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 343 (+4 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: This is a genuinely dense, paradigm-shifting observation about how the very structure of risk discourse predetermines the moral conclusions of any post-crisis accounting — it resists a one-sentence summary.

Broader Connections