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
    The decomposability of inequality indices and separabilit... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The decomposability of inequality indices and separability of social welfare functions carry significant ethical weight, not merely technical convenience.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Separability conditions presuppose that individuals' well-beings can be evaluated independently of one another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism is correct determines whether such independence assumptions are ethically acceptable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adopting separability implicitly takes a side in the egalitarianism-versus-prioritarianism debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Separability conditions are mathematically necessary for tractable aggregation across large populations, not expressions of ethical commitments about independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A technical constraint that enables measurement does not thereby encode the normative assumptions that would follow if the constraint were chosen on ethical grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harsanyi's aggregation theorem shows separability can be derived from expected utility axioms without presupposing any stance in the egalitarianism-prioritarianism debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach and Rawlsian contractualism both generate inequality assessments that are decomposable yet explicitly reject the individualist independence assumptions Argument 1 attributes to separability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same formal structure of decomposability is logically compatible with relational and communitarian ethical frameworks, refuting the claim that it carries distinctively individualist ethical weight.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A technical constraint that enables measurement does not thereby encode the norm...Adopting separability implicitly takes a side in the egalitarianism-versus-prior...Harsanyi's aggregation theorem shows separability can be derived from expected u...Sen's capability approach and Rawlsian contractualism both generate inequality a...
    +4 moreShow less
    Separability conditions are mathematically necessary for tractable aggregation a...Separability conditions presuppose that individuals' well-beings can be evaluate...The same formal structure of decomposability is logically compatible with relati...Whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism is correct determines whether such ind...

    Similar

    An additively separable social welfare function evaluates each individ...76%Egalitarian values cannot be correctly represented by an additively se...75%Separability of social welfare functions may be ethically justified by...74%A separable social welfare function reflects the idea that each person...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: economic-justice
    View source passageHide passage
    Philosophical interest in the measurement of inequality has recently risen (Temkin 1993). Most of this philosophical literature, however, tends to focus on defining the right foundations for an aversion to inequality. In particular, Parfit (1995) proposes to give priority to the worse-off not because of their relative position compared to the better-off, but because and to the extent that they are badly off. This probably corresponds to defining social welfare by an additively separable social w
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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