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 impossibility result is not relevant or applicable ... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Democracy & GovernanceRights & Liberty
    ?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.Sen's minimal liberalism condition formalizes rights as purely preference-based rankings, ignoring their deontological structure as side-constraints (Nozick).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine individual rights function as constraints on social choice procedures, not as inputs to aggregation, making Sen's impossibility framework categorically inapplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A result derived from a mischaracterization of rights cannot generate genuine impossibilities about rights properly conceived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's theorem presupposes a welfarist framework where all normative considerations reduce to ordinal preference rankings across social states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individual rights in the liberal tradition (Dworkin, Rawls) are lexically prior to preference-satisfaction and thus cannot coherently participate in the trade-offs Sen's framework requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Theorems that assume away the foundational features of the concept they purport to analyze are conceptually external to their stated domain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Sen's 'minimal liberalism' condition uses an inadequate formalization of the notion of individual rights
      ?

      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

    Rights & LibertyDemocracy & Governance

    Related

    A result derived from a mischaracterization of rights cannot generate genuine im...Genuine individual rights function as constraints on social choice procedures, n...Individual rights in the liberal tradition (Dworkin, Rawls) are lexically prior ...Sen's 'minimal liberalism' condition uses an inadequate formalization of the not...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sen's minimal liberalism condition formalizes rights as purely preference-based ...Sen's theorem presupposes a welfarist framework where all normative consideratio...Theorems that assume away the foundational features of the concept they purport ...

    Similar

    No general rule satisfying reasonable constraints can be devised that ...80%Arrow's impossibility theorem can also be avoided by relaxing Independ...76%Arrow's impossibility theorem reveals limitations of frameworks restri...75%Arrow's impossibility theorem can be avoided by relaxing the ordinal n...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: social-choice
    View source passageHide passage
    However, several authors have challenged the relevance of Sen’s result, by arguing that his ‘minimal liberalism’ condition uses an inadequate formalization of the notion of individual rights (e.g., Gaertner, Pattanaik, and Suzumura 1992; Dowding and van Hees 2003).
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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