Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Compensation-based welfare criteria are biased in favor o... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Compensation-based welfare criteria are biased in favor of the wealthy

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kaldor-Hicks efficiency treats hypothetical compensation as equivalent to actual redistribution, privileging aggregate welfare gains over distributive outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sen's capability approach demonstrates that marginal utility of income is higher for the poor, so equal nominal gains mask unequal welfare improvements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion that systematically discounts the welfare of those with lower purchasing power encodes existing wealth inequality into its foundational structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's difference principle requires that inequalities benefit the least advantaged, a constraint compensation criteria structurally cannot satisfy when transfers remain hypothetical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When willingness-to-pay proxies social value, policies that redistribute wealth downward are systematically undervalued relative to policies concentrating gains among the already wealthy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Willingness to pay is generally higher among the rich
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Higher willingness to pay means the rich can more easily satisfy the compensation threshold in Kaldor's criterion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the rich do not actually pay the compensation, they obtain the policy benefit without bearing its redistributive cost
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Related

    A criterion that systematically discounts the welfare of those with lower purcha...Higher willingness to pay means the rich can more easily satisfy the compensatio...Kaldor-Hicks efficiency treats hypothetical compensation as equivalent to actual...Rawls's difference principle requires that inequalities benefit the least advant...
    +4 moreShow less
    Sen's capability approach demonstrates that marginal utility of income is higher...When the rich do not actually pay the compensation, they obtain the policy benef...When willingness-to-pay proxies social value, policies that redistribute wealth ...Willingness to pay is generally higher among the rich

    Similar

    If welfare is a subjective notion, there is no reason to assume a stri...73%Egalitarian arrangements such as welfare funded by taxation are incomp...72%If the goal is maximizing welfare rather than health, disability may b...72%Average utilitarianism is overly restrictive for affluent populations ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: economic-justice
    View source passageHide passage
    The proponents of a “new” welfare economics (Hicks, Kaldor, Scitovsky) have distanced themselves from their predecessors (Marshall, Pigou, Lerner) by abandoning the idea of making social welfare judgments on the basis of interpersonal comparisons of utility. Their problem was then that in absence of any kind of interpersonal comparisons, the only principle on which to ground their judgments was the Pareto principle, according to which a situation is a global improvement if it is an improvement f
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit