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
    Kaldor's compensation criterion has dubious ethical value... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Kaldor's compensation criterion has dubious ethical value when compensatory transfers are not actually performed

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?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.Rawls's difference principle requires that inequalities benefit the least advantaged in actuality, not merely in hypothetical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A criterion permitting uncompensated losses treats persons as means to aggregate welfare, violating Kantian constraints on using individuals instrumentally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hypothetical consent to losses one never actually recovers from cannot ground distributive legitimacy under any contractualist framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach holds that justice must be evaluated by actual freedoms achieved, not potential states that remain unrealized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kaldor-Hicks efficiency permits outcomes where identifiable individuals bear permanent welfare losses, making it structurally indistinguishable from exploitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If compensatory transfers are not performed, the losers remain losers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The mere possibility of compensation does not constitute actual welfare improvement for the losers
      ?

      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 permitting uncompensated losses treats persons as means to aggregate...Hypothetical consent to losses one never actually recovers from cannot ground di...If compensatory transfers are not performed, the losers remain losersKaldor-Hicks efficiency permits outcomes where identifiable individuals bear per...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rawls's difference principle requires that inequalities benefit the least advant...Sen's capability approach holds that justice must be evaluated by actual freedom...The mere possibility of compensation does not constitute actual welfare improvem...

    Similar

    Kaldor's compensation criterion has dubious ethical value when compens...99%If compensatory transfers are actually performed under Kaldor's criter...80%Kaldor's and Hicks' compensation criteria may produce inconsistent soc...77%Therefore Kaldor's criterion adds nothing beyond the Pareto criterion ...76%

    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