15 found
Order:
  1. Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility.Peter J. Hammond - 1988 - Theory and Decision 25 (1):25-78.
    Behaviour norms are considered for decision trees which allow both objective probabilities and uncertain states of the world with unknown probabilities. Terminal nodes have consequences in a given domain. Behaviour is required to be consistent in subtrees. Consequentialist behaviour, by definition, reveals a consequence choice function independent of the structure of the decision tree. It implies that behaviour reveals a revealed preference ordering satisfying both the independence axiom and a novel form of sure-thing principle. Continuous consequentialist behaviour must be expected (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   105 citations  
  2.  84
    Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made.Peter J. Hammond - 1991 - In Jon Elster & John E. Roemer (eds.), Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 200--254.
  3.  48
    Foundations of Social Choice Theory.Peter J. Hammond - 1987 - Mind 96 (383):423-427.
    The essays in this volume, first published in 1986, examine the philosophical foundations of social choice theory. This field, a modern and sophisticated outgrowth of welfare economics, is best known for a series of impossibility theorems, of which the first and most crucial was proved by Kenneth Arrow in 1950. That has often been taken to show the impossibility of democracy as a procedure for making collective decisions. However, this interpretation is challenged by several of the contributors here. Other central (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  4.  55
    Orderly Decision Theory.Peter J. Hammond - 1988 - Economics and Philosophy 4 (2):292-297.
  5. Utilitarianism, uncertainty and information.Peter J. Hammond - 1982 - In Amartya Sen & Bernard Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 85--102.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  6.  50
    Should we discount the welfare of future generations? : Ramsey and Suppes versus Koopmans and Arrow.Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern - unknown
    Ramsey famously pronounced that discounting “future enjoyments” would be ethically indefensible. Suppes enunciated an equity criterion implying that all individuals’ welfare should be treated equally. By contrast, Arrow accepted, perhaps rather reluctantly, the logical force of Koopmans’ argument that no satisfactory preference ordering on a sufficiently unrestricted domain of infinite utility streams satisfies equal treatment. In this paper, we first derive an equitable utilitarian objective based on a version of the Vickrey–Harsanyi original position, extended to allow a variable and uncertain (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  12
    Fundamental utilitarianism and intergenerational equity with extinction discounting.Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern - 2020 - Social Choice and Welfare 54 (2-3).
    Ramsey famously condemned discounting “future enjoyments” as “ethically indefensible”. Suppes enunciated an equity criterion which, when social choice is utilitarian, implies giving equal weight to all individuals’ utilities. By contrast, Arrow (Contemporary economic issues. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1999a; Discounting and Intergenerational Effects, Resources for the Future Press, Washington DC, 1999b) accepted, perhaps reluctantly, what he called Koopmans’ (Econometrica 28(2):287–309, 1960) “strong argument” implying that no equitable preference ordering exists for a sufficiently unrestricted domain of infinite utility (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  18
    Fundamental utilitarianism and intergenerational equity with extinction discounting.Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern - forthcoming - Social Choice and Welfare.
    Ramsey famously condemned discounting “future enjoyments” as “ethically indefensible”. Suppes enunciated an equity criterion which, when social choice is utilitarian, implies giving equal weight to all individuals’ utilities. By contrast, Arrow accepted, perhaps reluctantly, what he called Koopmans’ :287–309, 1960) “strong argument” implying that no equitable preference ordering exists for a sufficiently unrestricted domain of infinite utility streams. Here we derive an equitable utilitarian objective for a finite population based on a version of the Vickrey–Harsanyi original position, where there is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  32
    Why ethical measures of inequality need interpersonal comparisons.Peter J. Hammond - 1976 - Theory and Decision 7 (4):263-274.
  10. Consequentialist Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics.Peter J. Hammond - 1991 - European University Institute.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  19
    Handbook of Utility Theory: Volume 1: Principles.Salvador Barbera, Peter J. Hammond & Christian Seidl (eds.) - 1998 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    The standard rationality hypothesis implies that behaviour can be represented as the maximization of a suitably restricted utility function. This hypothesis lies at the heart of a large body of recent work in economics, of course, but also in political science, ethics, and other major branches of social sciences. Though the utility maximization hypothesis is venerable, it remains an area of active research. Moreover, some fundamental conceptual problems remain unresolved, or at best have resolutions that are too recent to have (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12.  12
    No Title available: Reviews.Peter J. Hammond - 1991 - Economics and Philosophy 7 (2):300-308.
  13.  15
    Review of Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland: Foundations of Social Choice Theory[REVIEW]Peter J. Hammond - 1989 - Ethics 100 (1):190-191.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  14.  30
    Book Review:Foundations of Social Choice Theory. Jon Elster, Aanund Hylland. [REVIEW]Peter J. Hammond - 1989 - Ethics 100 (1):190-.
  15.  19
    Morality within the Limits of Reason, Russell Hardin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988, xx + 234 pages. [REVIEW]Peter J. Hammond - 1991 - Economics and Philosophy 7 (2):300.