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
    Sen's theorem presupposes a welfarist framework where all... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Sen's impossibility result is not relevant or applicable to individual rights in social choice theory

    Sen's theorem presupposes a welfarist framework where all normative considerations reduce to ordinal preference rankings across social states.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sen's impossibility result derives from assuming preferences are the sole input to social choice, making welfarism explicit in the formal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sen's framework cannot accommodate non-preference values like rights or liberties without reducing them to preference satisfaction, confirming welfarist reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theorem's conclusion (no function satisfies all conditions) only obtains given ordinal preferences as exhaustive normative data.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sen explicitly critiqued welfarism and developed capability approach to transcend preference-based evaluation, contradicting the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The theorem's formal structure doesn't entail normative welfarism; it merely models preference aggregation mathematically without endorsing it ethically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sen distinguished between individual preferences and social states to accommodate non-welfarist values like liberty, showing the framework's flexibility.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Democracy & Governance1 linkedRights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    Sen distinguished between individual preferences and social states to accommodat...Sen explicitly critiqued welfarism and developed capability approach to transcen...Sen's framework cannot accommodate non-preference values like rights or libertie...Sen's impossibility result derives from assuming preferences are the sole input ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sen's impossibility result is not relevant or applicable to individual rights in...The theorem's conclusion (no function satisfies all conditions) only obtains giv...The theorem's formal structure doesn't entail normative welfarism; it merely mod...

    Details

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