Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (2):217-230 (2018)
AbstractIn a number of writings, Cass Sunstein has argued that we should use cost-benefit analysis as our primary approach to risk management, because cost-benefit analysis corrects for the cognitive biases that mar our thinking about risk. The paper critically evaluates this ‘cognitive argument for cost-benefit analysis’ and finds it wanting. Once we make distinctions between different cognitive errors and between different aspects of cost-benefit analysis, it becomes apparent that there are really two cognitive arguments, neither of which is successful as arguments for cost-benefit analysis as a whole. One argument shows that the analysis aspect of cost-benefit analysis is warranted because it corrects for false beliefs about the magnitudes of risk and for the neglect of some costs. While this is a sound argument, it does not provide an argument for other aspects of cost-benefit analysis. The second argument purports to show that commensurating and monetizing the values of the effects of regulation is warranted because it corrects for the use of widely diverging values of a statistical life. This argument fails because the use of widely diverging values of a statistical life is not a cognitive error: It is neither precluded by considerations of instrumental rationality, nor by the requirement of treating like cases alike.
Similar books and articles
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Procedural Values.Douglas MacLean - 1994 - Analyse & Kritik 16 (2):166-180.
Rationalizing Risks to Cultural Loss in Resource Development.Sari Graben - 2013 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 26 (1):83-114.
Science, Democracy, and Public Policy.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1992 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 6 (2-3):255-264.
Costs and Benefits of Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Response to Bantz and MacLean.Peter Railton - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:261-271.
Economics, Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Linearity Assumption.K. S. Shrader-Frechette - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:217 - 232.
Natura Economica in Environmental Valuation.Katrine Soma - 2006 - Environmental Values 15 (1):31-50.
Natura Economica in Environmental Valuation.Katrine Soma - 2006 - Environmental Values 15 (1):31 - 50.
Values, Preferences, and the Citizen-Consumer Distinction in Cost-Benefit Analysis.Shepley W. Orr - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):107-130.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives.Matthew D. Adler & Eric A. Posner (eds.) - 2001 - University of Chicago Press.
The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis.Donald C. Hubin - 1994 - Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169-194.
Ethical Issues in Environmental Decision Making and the Limitations of Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA).Simon Glynn - 1996 - Ethics and the Environment 1 (1):27 - 39.
Review of Matthew D. Adler: Well-Being and Fair Distribution. Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. [REVIEW]Alex Voorhoeve - 2014 - Social Choice and Welfare 42 (1):245-54.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life.Jeff McMahan - 2002 - Oup Usa.
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle.Cass R. Sunstein - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.