File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s10670-012-9377-4
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84876677583
- WOS: WOS:000317928000011
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Risk-free approaches to the priority view
Title | Risk-free approaches to the priority view |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Philosophy Epistemology Ontology Ethics Logic |
Issue Date | 2013 |
Publisher | Springer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=0165-0106 |
Citation | Erkenntnis, 2013, v. 78 n. 2, p. 421-449 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Parfit advertised the priority view as a new and fundamental theory in the ethics of distribution. He never discusses risk, and many writers follow suit when discussing the priority view. This article formalizes two popular arguments for a commonly accepted risk-free definition of the priority view. One is based on a direct attempt to define the priority view, the other is based on a contrast with utilitarianism and egalitarianism. But it argues that neither argument succeeds, and more generally, that it is not possible to make sense of the priority view in a risk-free framework. As a diagnosis, the article suggests that the literature on the priority view has paid insufficient attention to axiomatization and has most likely mistaken the proper role of the use of evaluative measurements in theorizing about the ethics of distribution. Reasons are eventually offered for thinking that despite appearances, approaching the priority view in terms of risk from the outset is quite natural. © 2012 The Author(s). |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/147132 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.740 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References | Brown, C. (2007). Prioritarianism for variable populations, Philosophical Studies 134, 325–361. doi: 10.1007/s11098-005-0897-5 Gibbard, A. (2008). Reconciling our aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195370423.001.0001 Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility, Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–21. doi: 10.1086/257678 Jackson, F. (2000). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0198250614.001.0001 Jensen, K.K. (2003) What is the difference between (moderate) egalitarianism and prioritarianism?, Economics and Philosophy 19, 89–109. doi: 10.1017/S0266267103001032 McCarthy, D. (2008). Utilitarianism and prioritarianism II, Economics and Philosophy 24, 1–33. doi: 10.1017/S026626710800165X McKerlie, D. (2001). Dimensions of equality, Utilitas 13, 263–288. doi: 10.1017/S0953820800003186 Myerson, R. (1981). Utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the timing effect in social choice problems Econometrica 49, 883-897. doi: 10.2307/1912508 Rabinowicz, W. (2002). Prioritarianism for prospects, Utilitas 14, 2–21. doi: 10.1017/S0953820800003368 Segal, U. (2006). Fair bias, Economics and Philosophy 22, 213–29. doi: 10.1017/S0266267106000873 Sen, A. (1973) On economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/0198281935.001.0001 Tungodden, B. (2003). The value of equality, Economics and Philosophy 19, 1–44. doi: 10.1017/S0266267103001007 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | McCarthy, D | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-05-28T08:20:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-05-28T08:20:11Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Erkenntnis, 2013, v. 78 n. 2, p. 421-449 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 0165-0106 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/147132 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Parfit advertised the priority view as a new and fundamental theory in the ethics of distribution. He never discusses risk, and many writers follow suit when discussing the priority view. This article formalizes two popular arguments for a commonly accepted risk-free definition of the priority view. One is based on a direct attempt to define the priority view, the other is based on a contrast with utilitarianism and egalitarianism. But it argues that neither argument succeeds, and more generally, that it is not possible to make sense of the priority view in a risk-free framework. As a diagnosis, the article suggests that the literature on the priority view has paid insufficient attention to axiomatization and has most likely mistaken the proper role of the use of evaluative measurements in theorizing about the ethics of distribution. Reasons are eventually offered for thinking that despite appearances, approaching the priority view in terms of risk from the outset is quite natural. © 2012 The Author(s). | en_HK |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Springer Verlag Dordrecht. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=0165-0106 | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Erkenntnis | en_HK |
dc.rights | The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | en_US |
dc.subject | Philosophy | en_US |
dc.subject | Epistemology | en_US |
dc.subject | Ontology | en_US |
dc.subject | Ethics | en_US |
dc.subject | Logic | en_US |
dc.title | Risk-free approaches to the priority view | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.openurl | http://www.springerlink.com/link-out/?id=2104&code=T6T5628360032H17&MUD=MP | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | McCarthy, D: mccarthy@hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | McCarthy, D=rp01447 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s10670-012-9377-4 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84876677583 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 206539 | - |
dc.relation.references | Brown, C. (2007). Prioritarianism for variable populations, Philosophical Studies 134, 325–361. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1007/s11098-005-0897-5 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Gibbard, A. (2008). Reconciling our aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195370423.001.0001 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility, Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–21. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1086/257678 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Jackson, F. (2000). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1093/0198250614.001.0001 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Jensen, K.K. (2003) What is the difference between (moderate) egalitarianism and prioritarianism?, Economics and Philosophy 19, 89–109. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S0266267103001032 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | McCarthy, D. (2008). Utilitarianism and prioritarianism II, Economics and Philosophy 24, 1–33. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S026626710800165X | en_US |
dc.relation.references | McKerlie, D. (2001). Dimensions of equality, Utilitas 13, 263–288. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S0953820800003186 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Myerson, R. (1981). Utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the timing effect in social choice problems Econometrica 49, 883-897. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.2307/1912508 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Rabinowicz, W. (2002). Prioritarianism for prospects, Utilitas 14, 2–21. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S0953820800003368 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Segal, U. (2006). Fair bias, Economics and Philosophy 22, 213–29. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S0266267106000873 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Sen, A. (1973) On economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1093/0198281935.001.0001 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Tungodden, B. (2003). The value of equality, Economics and Philosophy 19, 1–44. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | doi: 10.1017/S0266267103001007 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Broome, J. (1989). What’s the good of equality?, In J.D. Hey (Ed.) Current issues in microeconomics. (pp. 236–262). New York: Macmillan. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Broome, J. (1990–1991). Fairness, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91, 87-102. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Broome, J. (1991). Weighing goods. Oxford: Blackwell. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Broome, J. (2004). Equality versus priority: a useful distinction, In D. Wikler & C. Murray (Eds.), Fairness and goodness in health. Geneva: World Health Organization. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Fleurbaey, M. (2004). Equality versus priority: how relevant is the distinction?, In D. Wikler & C. Murray. (Eds.) Fairness and goodness in health. Geneva: World Health Organization. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Hammond, P. (1991). Interpersonal comparisons of utility: why and how they are and should be made, In J. Elster & J. Roemer (Eds.) Interpersonal comparisons of well-being (pp. 200–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Hurley, S. (1989). Natural reasons Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Krantz, D., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement. Vol. 1. New York, Academic Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Lewis, C.I. (1946). The analysis of knowledge and valuation. La Salle: Open Court Publishing. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | McCarthy, D. (2011). The priority view, manuscript. Pokfulam: University of Hong Kong, Department of Philosophy. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | McCarthy, D. (forthcoming). Distributive equality, Mind. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Nagel, T. (1970) The possibility of altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Narens, L. (2007). Introduction to the theories of measurement and meaningfulness and the use of symmetry in science London: Lawrence Erblaum Associates. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Parfit, D. (2000). Equality or priority?, In M. Clayton & A. Williams (Eds.) The ideal of equality. (pp. 347–386). New York, Macmillan. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Parfit, D. (2011). On what matters. vol. 1 New York: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Rabinowicz, W. (2001). Prioritarianism and uncertainty: on the interpersonal addition theorem and the priority view, In D. Egonsson, J. Josefsson, B. Petersson & T. Rønnow-Rasmussen (Eds.) Exploring practical philosophy: From action to values. Ashgate: Aldershot. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Rawls J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Resnik, M. (1987). Choices: An introduction to decision theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Roberts, F. (2009). Measurement theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Temkin, L. 1993. Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en_US |
dc.relation.references | Wakker, P. (1989). Additive representations of preferences. Dordrecht: Kluwer. | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 421 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 449 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1572-8420 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000317928000011 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Netherlands | en_HK |
dc.description.other | Springer Open Choice, 28 May 2012 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | McCarthy, D=15019816900 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citeulike | 10690970 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0165-0106 | - |