Skip to main content
Log in

What to Make of the Liberal Paradox?

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sen's Liberal Paradox has received a good deal of attention in the literature. However, it is worth re-opening the discussion since the solutions offered so far have serious problems and since there is more to say about the nature of the problem displayed by the Liberal Paradox. I propose a new solution to the paradox in the following sense: First, I argue that its range of applicability is not very broad. Second, there is nothing paradoxical about a conflict of the principles involved in the Liberal Paradox. (Nagel's thesis of the ``fragmentation of value'' is important to make this point.) Third, I make a recommendation about how to remove conflicts when they occur in a restricted class of cases. For the other cases, no recommendation of similar appeal is available. But in the light of the first point, the availability of a generally applicable recommendation was not to be expected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Arrow, K. (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1986), Lady Chatterley's Lover and Doctor Fischer's Bomb Party: Liberalism, Pareto Optimality, and the Problem of Objectionable Preferences, in: J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds.), Foundations of Social Choice Theory.

  • Dworkin, R. (1984), Rights as Trumps, in: J. Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, B. (1975), Individual Liberalism in a Paretian Society, Journal of Political Economy, 1277-1281.

  • Gärdenfors, P. (1981), Rights, Games, and Social Choices, Nous, Volume XV, No. 3.

  • Levi, I. (1992), Conflict and Inquiry, Ethics 102: 814-834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1979), The Fragmentation of Value, in:Mortal Ouestions, pp. 128-141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressler, J. (1990), The Flaws in Sen's Case Against Paretian Libertarianism, in: W. Sieg (ed.), Acting and Reflecting.

  • Seabright, P. (1989), Social Choice and Social Theories, Philosophy and Public Affairs 18: 365-387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1970a), The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal, Journal of Political Economy 78: 365-387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1970b), Collective Choice and Social Welfare. North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1976), Liberty, Unanimity, and Rights, Economica 43: 217-245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1977), Social Choice Theory: A Re-Examination, Economica 45: 53-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1983), Liberty and Social Choice, Journal of Philosophy 80: 5-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992),Minimal Liberty, Economica 59: 139-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, H. (1977), The Structure of a Set of Compossible Rights, Journal of Philosophy 74: 767-775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1981), The Political Economy of Public Choice. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1985), Liberty, Preference, and Choice, Economics and Philosophy 1: 213-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J.J. (1990), The Realm of Rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne, P. (1989), How to Combine Pareto Optimality with Liberty Considerations, Theory and Decision 27: 217-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (1984), Introduction, in: J. Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (1991), Rights in Conflict, in: Liberal Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1973), Ethical Consistency, in: Problems of the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathias Risse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Risse, M. What to Make of the Liberal Paradox?. Theory and Decision 50, 169–196 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010301408403

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010301408403

Navigation