David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):163-183 (2007)
Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is much more philosophically interesting than has in general been recognized. Since it is the only well-developed form of applied consequentialism, it is a testing-ground for consequentialism and for the counterfactual analysis that it requires. Ten classes of philosophical problems that affect the practical performance of cost–benefit analysis are investigated: topic selection, dependence on the decision perspective, dangers of super synopticism and undue centralization, prediction problems, the indeterminateness of our control over future decisions, the need to exclude certain consequences for moral reasons, bias in the delimitation of consequences, incommensurability of consequences, difficulties in defending the essential requirement of transferability across contexts, and the normatively questionable but equally essential assumption of interpersonal compensability. (Published Online July 31 2007).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Madeleine Hayenhjelm & Jonathan Wolff (2012). The Moral Problem of Risk Impositions: A Survey of the Literature. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (S1):E1-E142.
Sven Ove Hansson (2010). The Harmful Influence of Decision Theory on Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (5):585-593.
Stephen John (2010). In Defence of Bad Science and Irrational Policies: An Alternative Account of the Precautionary Principle. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):3 - 18.
Sven Hansson (2011). Coping with the Unpredictable Effects of Future Technologies. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):137-149.
Georg Spielthenner (2012). Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
Similar books and articles
Matthew D. Adler & Eric A. Posner (eds.) (2001). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives. University of Chicago Press.
David Schmidtz (2001). A Place for Cost-Benefit Analysis. Noûs 35 (s1):148 - 171.
Peter Railton (1982). Costs and Benefits of Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Response to Bantz and MacLean. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:261-271.
Richard S. Markovits (2005). Matthew D. Adler and Eric A. Posner, Eds., Cost‐Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives:Cost‐Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives. [REVIEW] Ethics 115 (3):593-642.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (1982). Economics, Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Linearity Assumption. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:217 - 232.
Kristin Shrader‐Frechette (1992). Science, Democracy, and Public Policy. Critical Review 6 (2-3):255-264.
Shepley W. Orr (2007). Values, Preferences, and the Citizen-Consumer Distinction in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):107-130.
Simon Glynn (1996). Ethical Issues in Environmental Decision Making and the Limitations of Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA). Ethics and the Environment 1 (1):27 - 39.
Donald C. Hubin (1993). Book Review:Thoughtful Economic Man: Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence. Gay Meeks. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (3):572-.
Donald C. Hubin (1994). The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads66 ( #64,800 of 1,906,942 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #277,703 of 1,906,942 )
How can I increase my downloads?