Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-31T21:48:07.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PRIORITY VIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2016

David McCarthy
David McCarthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Email: davidmccarthy1@gmail.com URL: http://philosophy.hku.hk/?n=Main.StaffDM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

According to the priority view, or prioritarianism, it matters more to benefit people the worse off they are. But how exactly should the priority view be defined? This article argues for a highly general characterization which essentially involves risk, but makes no use of evaluative measurements or the expected utility axioms. A representation theorem is provided, and when further assumptions are added, common accounts of the priority view are recovered. A defence of the key idea behind the priority view, the priority principle, is provided. But it is argued that the priority view fails on both ethical and conceptual grounds.

Keywords

Priority viewprioritarianismegalitarianismutilitarianismdistribution

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , July 2017 , pp. 215 - 257
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Abdellaouia, M., Barrios, C., and Wakker, P.. 2007. Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics 138: 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, M. 2011. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. and Stiglitz, J.. 1980. Lectures on Public Economics. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ben-Porath, E., Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.. 1997. On the measurement of inequality under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory 75: 194–204.Google Scholar
Bouyssou, D. and Vansnick, J.-C.. 1988. A note on the relationships between utility and value functions. In Risk, Decision and Rationality, ed. Munier, B., 103–114. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1989. What's the good of equality? In Current Issues in Microeconomics, ed. Hey, J., 236–262. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1990–91. Fairness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91: 87–102.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2004. Weighing Lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2015. Equality versus priority: a useful distinction. Economics and Philosophy 31: 219–228.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 2003. Giving up levelling down. Economics and Philosophy 19: 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P. 1967. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility: comment. Journal of Political Economy 75: 765–766.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2010. Assessing risky social situations. Journal of Political Economy, 118: 649–680.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2015. Equality versus priority: how relevant is the distinction? Economics and Philosophy 31: 203–217.Google Scholar
Greaves, H. 2015. Antiprioritarianism. Utilitas 27: 1–42.Google Scholar
Hammond, P. 1991. Interpersonal comparisons of utility: why and how they are and should be made. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, J. and Roemer, J., 200–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, G., Littlewood, J. and Pólya, G.. 1934. Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1977. Nonlinear social welfare functions: a rejoinder to Professor Sen. In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Butts, R. and Hintikka, J., 293–296. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Holtug, N. 2010. Persons, Interests, and Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hurley, S. 1989. Natural Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 2000. From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defense of Conceptual Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. 1995. Measuring the size of a benefit and its moral weight. Theoria 61: 25–60.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. 2003. What is the difference between (moderate) egalitarianism and prioritarianism? Economics and Philosophy 19: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. 1946. The Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1970. How to define theoretical terms. Journal of Philosophy 67: 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2006. Utilitarianism and prioritarianism I. Economics and Philosophy 22: 335–363.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2007. Measuring life's goodness. Philosophical Books 48: 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2008. Utilitarianism and prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24: 1–33.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2013. Risk-free approaches to the priority view. Erkenntnis 78: 421–449.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 2015. Distributive equality. Mind 124: 1045–1109.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., Mikkola, K. and Thomas, T.. 2016. Utilitarianism with and without expected utility. MPRA Paper No. 72578 https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/72578/.Google Scholar
McKerlie, D. 2001. Dimensions of equality. Utilitas 13: 263–288.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. and Mookherjee, D.. 1987. Incentives, compensation, and social welfare. Review of Economic Studies 54: 209–226.Google Scholar
Myerson, R. 1981. Utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the timing effect in social choice problems. Econometrica 49: 883–897.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M. and Voorhoeve, A.. 2009. Why it matters that some are worse than others: an argument against the priority view. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37: 171–199.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1991. Equality or priority? The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2012. Another defense of the priority view. Utilitas 24: 399–440.Google Scholar
Pennings, J. and Smidts, A.. 2000. Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science 46: 1337–1348.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2001. Prioritarianism and uncertainty: on the interpersonal addition theorem and the priority view. In Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values, ed. Egonsson, D., Josefsson, J., Petersson, B. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., 139–165. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2002. Prioritarianism for prospects. Utilitas 14: 2–21.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1952. Probability, utility, and the independence axiom. Econometrica 20: 670–678.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1976. Welfare inequalities and Rawlsian axiomatics. Theory and Decision 7: 243–62.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1977. Non-linear social welfare functions: a reply to Professor Harsanyi. In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Butts, R. and Hintikka, J., 297–302. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. and Winet, M.. 1955. An axiomatization of utility based on the notion of utility differences. Management Science 1: 259–70.Google Scholar
Tungodden, B. 2003. The value of equality. Economics and Philosophy 19: 1–44.Google Scholar
Weymark, J. 1991. A reconsideration of the Harsanyi-Sen debate on utilitarianism. In Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster, J. and Roemer, J., 255–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar