Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T06:25:27.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Interpersonal Comparisons Coherently

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Martin Barrett  and
Daniel Hausman
Martin Barrett
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Daniel Hausman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many ethical theories, including in particular consequentialist moral the ories, require comparisons of the amount of good possessed or received by different people. In the case of some goods, such as monetary income, wealth, education, or health, such comparisons are relatively unproblematic. Even in the case of such goods there may be serious empirical measurement problems, but there appear to be no difficulties in principle. Thus Cooter and Rappoport (1984) maintained that there was no serious difficulty of making interpersonal utility comparisons for an earlier generation of economists who regarded utility as an index of “material welfare.”

Information

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 293 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, Kenneth. 1978. “Extended Sympathy and the Possibility of Social Choice.” Philosophia 7:223–37.Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard. 1979. A Theory of the Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Rappoport, Peter. 1984. “Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature 22:507–30.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1955. “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy 63:309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1975. “Nonlinear Social Welfare Functions: Do Welfare Economists Have a Special Exemption From Bayesian Rationality? Theory and Decision 6:311–22; reprinted in Essays on Ethics, Social Behavior, and Scientific Explanation, pp. 64–85. Dordrect: Reidel, 1976. (Citations from original)Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1977a. “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” Social Research 44; reprinted in Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by Sen, A. and Williams, B., pp. 39–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Citations from reprint)Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1977b. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolm, Ş. 1972. Justice et Equité. Paris: Editions du centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
MacKay, Alfred. 1986. “Extended Sympathy and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons.” Journal of Philosophy 83:305–22.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1982. “Social Unity and Primary Goods.” In Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by Sen, A. and Williams, B., pp. 159–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2nd. ed.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sheng, C. L. 1987. “A Note on Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Theory and Decision 22:1–12.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211:453–58.Google Scholar