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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis.Donald C. Hubin - 1994 - Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169.
Book Review:Thoughtful Economic Man: Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence. Gay Meeks. [REVIEW]Donald C. Hubin - 1993 - Ethics 103 (3):572-.
The Philosophical Basis of Cost-Risk-Benefit Analyses.David A. Bantz - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:227 - 242.
Science, Democracy, and Public Policy.Kristin Shrader‐Frechette - 1992 - Critical Review 6 (2-3):255-264.
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.
The Assumptions Behind the Assumptions in the War on Terror: Risk Assessment as an Example of Foundational Disagreement in Counterterrorism Policy.Kenneth Anderson - unknown
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.
Cost-Benefit Versus Expected Utility Acceptance Rules.Alex C. Michalos - 1970 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970 (1):375-402.
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]Richard S. Markovits - 2005 - Ethics 115 (3):593-642.
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.
Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation.Cristiano Castelfranchi & Fabio Paglieri - 2011 - Argument and Computation 1 (1):71-91.
Tort Negligence, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Tradeoffs: A Closer Look at the Controversy.Kenneth W. Simons - 2008 - Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 41 (4):1171-1224.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives.Matthew D. Adler & Eric A. Posner (eds.) - 2001 - University of Chicago Press.
Values, Preferences, and the Citizen-Consumer Distinction in Cost-Benefit Analysis.Shepley W. Orr - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):107-130.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads14 ( #327,134 of 2,154,061 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #279,759 of 2,154,061 )
How can I increase my downloads?