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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Bergson-Samuelson approach is incomplete because it lacks specific justification for the fairness principles underlying the utility construction.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bergson and Samuelson did not specify which fairness principles justify constructing utility functions from preference orderings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without specifying those principles, the construction cannot be fully evaluated or applied.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's veil of ignorance demonstrates that utility aggregation requires prior justification of the distributive principles it embeds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function smuggles in interpersonal comparisons without grounding them in any explicit theory of fairness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sen's capability critique shows that preference-based utility construction systematically ignores adaptive preferences, revealing an unjustified normative baseline.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Arrow's impossibility theorem establishes that no aggregation procedure can satisfy all minimal fairness conditions simultaneously without prior normative commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Bergson-Samuelson framework presupposes Pareto optimality as a fairness principle, yet Pareto optimality is itself contested and requires independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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