David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:261-271 (1982)
Although the standard theory and actual practice of cost-benefit analysis are seriously defective, the general idea of making social policy in accord with an aggregative, maximizing, consequentialist criterion is a sensible one. Therefore it is argued, against Bantz, that interpersonal utility comparisons can be meaningful, and, against both Bantz and MacLean, that quantitative overall assessments of expected value provide a presumptively rational basis for social choice. However, it does not follow that introducing cost-benefit tests into the political or legal process would always be optimal: recognizing some quite stringent legal rights against involuntary exposure to pollution or risk may actually promote cost-beneficial results more reliably than cost-benefit tests employed in very imperfect circumstances
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Donald C. Hubin (1994). The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169.
Donald C. Hubin (1993). Book Review:Thoughtful Economic Man: Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence. Gay Meeks. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (3):572-.
David A. Bantz (1982). The Philosophical Basis of Cost-Risk-Benefit Analyses. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:227 - 242.
Kristin Shrader‐Frechette (1992). Science, Democracy, and Public Policy. Critical Review 6 (2-3):255-264.
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.
Kenneth Anderson, The Assumptions Behind the Assumptions in the War on Terror: Risk Assessment as an Example of Foundational Disagreement in Counterterrorism Policy.
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.
Alex C. Michalos (1970). Cost-Benefit Versus Expected Utility Acceptance Rules. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970 (1):375-402.
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.
Alex Voorhoeve (2014). Review of Matthew D. Adler: Well-Being and Fair Distribution. Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. [REVIEW] Social Choice and Welfare 42 (1):245-54.
Cristiano Castelfranchi & Fabio Paglieri (2011). Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation. Argument and Computation 1 (1):71-91.
Kenneth W. Simons (2008). Tort Negligence, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Tradeoffs: A Closer Look at the Controversy. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 41 (4):1171-1224.
Matthew D. Adler & Eric A. Posner (eds.) (2001). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives. University of Chicago Press.
Shepley W. Orr (2007). Values, Preferences, and the Citizen-Consumer Distinction in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):107-130.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads12 ( #354,010 of 1,902,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #452,252 of 1,902,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?