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 social choice framework should be generalized to permit consideration of information about individual utility functions, not only ordinal preferences.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Interpersonal utility comparisons lack objective epistemic foundations, as Robbins argued in 1932, making cardinal utility aggregation scientifically illegitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a common unit of measurement for utility across persons, introducing utility functions imports pseudo-precision that masks irreducibly political value judgments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ordinal preference frameworks, by avoiding spurious comparisons, honestly represent the limits of what welfare economics can rigorously establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sen's capability approach demonstrates that utility functions systematically misrepresent welfare by ignoring adaptive preferences formed under deprivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individuals conditioned by unjust circumstances calibrate their utility functions to constrained options, so aggregating such functions entrenches rather than corrects injustice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Richer informational bases for justice require objective metrics of functioning and capability, not subjective utility data that perpetuates preference distortion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Arrow's impossibility theorem reveals limitations of frameworks restricted to preference orderings alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ethically relevant evaluations such as distributional justice require richer informational inputs than ordinal preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Utility functions provide that richer informational basis.
      ?

      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.