Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:23:09.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stable and unstable choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2019

Anders Herlitz
Anders Herlitz*
Affiliation:
Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Email: andersherlitz@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces a condition for rational choice that states that accepting decision methods and normative theories that sometimes entail that the act of choosing a maximal alternative renders this alternative non-maximal is irrational. The paper illustrates how certain distributive theories that ascribe importance to what the status quo is violate this condition and argues that they thereby should be rejected.

Keywords

basic contraction consistencydistributive theorynormative invarianceprioritarianismrational choice
Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 113 - 125
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

References

Adler, M. D. 2012. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, G. 2009. Can the person affecting restriction solve the problems in population ethics? In M. A., Roberts and D. T., Wasserman (eds), Harming Future Persons: Ethics, Genetics and the Nonidentity Problem. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, G. and Rabinowicz, W. 2014. The value of existence. In I., Hirose and Olson, J. (eds), The Oxford Handbook to Value Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 424–443.Google Scholar
Bricker, P. 1980. Prudence. Journal of Philosophy 77, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bykvist, K. 2007a. Violations of normative invariance: some thoughts on shifty oughts. Theoria 77, 98–120.Google Scholar
Bykvist, K. 2007b. The benefits of coming into existence. Philosophical Studies 135, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bykvist, K. 2015. Being and wellbeing. In Hirose, I. and Reisner, A. (eds), Weighing and Reasoning: Themes from the Philosophy of John Broome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E. 1995. Consequentialism Reconsidered, Theory and Decision Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2013. Grounding practical normativity: going hybrid. Philosophical Studies 164, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, H. 1954. Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica 22, 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1995. The idea of equality revisited. In Altham, J. E. J. and Harrison, R. (eds), World, Mind, and Ethics: Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, F. 2016. Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve From Our Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Tungodden, B. and Vallentyne, P. 2009. On the possibility of nonaggregative priority for the worst off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26, 258–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlitz, A. 2017. Indeterminacy and the principle of need. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 38, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlitz, A. 2019. Nondeterminacy, two-step models, and justified choice. Ethics 129, 284–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlitz, A. and Horan, D. 2016. Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy. Social Science and Medicine 157, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, T. M., Millum, J. and Wasserman, D. 2017. How to allocate scarce health resources without discriminating against people with disabilities. Economics and Philosophy 33, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, F. 1996. Morality, Mortality II. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nebel, J. M. 2015. Status quo bias, rationality, and conservatism about value. Ethics 125, 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebel, J. M. 2017. Priority, not equality, for possible people. Ethics 127, 896–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nord, E. 2005. Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity. Social Science and Medicine 60, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottersen, T. 2013. Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting. Journal of Medical Ethics 39, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottersen, T., Maestad, O. and Norheim, O. F. 2014. Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 12, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, D. 1991. Equality or Priority? The Lindley Lecture. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1993. Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 52, 167–183.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1997. Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65, 745–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 1985. Why be consistent? A critical analysis of consistency requirements in choice theory. Economica 52, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. 2012. Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhoeve, A. 2014. How should we aggregate competing claims? Ethics 125, 64–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 1973. The idea of equality. In Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956–1972, 230–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar