基于视角的聚合如何破坏帕累托原则

IF 1.6 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Politics Philosophy & Economics Pub Date : 2020-01-22 DOI:10.1177/1470594X19898866
I. Sher
{"title":"基于视角的聚合如何破坏帕累托原则","authors":"I. Sher","doi":"10.1177/1470594X19898866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Pareto principle is a normative principle about preferences that advocates concordance with unanimous preference. However, people have perspectives not just preferences. Evaluating preferences requires that we understand the reasons that people have for them and the overall perspectives from which they arise. Philippe Mongin has argued that the Pareto principle loses its normative force when different people hold their preferences for different reasons so that we must take reasons into account. This article advocates that we take people’s broader perspectives into account. I argue that when people form their preferences by aggregating a collection of criteria, then taking these criteria directly into account and considering the broader perspectives and principles held by people will naturally lead to violations of the Pareto principle.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"81 1","pages":"182 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How perspective-based aggregation undermines the Pareto principle\",\"authors\":\"I. Sher\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1470594X19898866\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Pareto principle is a normative principle about preferences that advocates concordance with unanimous preference. However, people have perspectives not just preferences. Evaluating preferences requires that we understand the reasons that people have for them and the overall perspectives from which they arise. Philippe Mongin has argued that the Pareto principle loses its normative force when different people hold their preferences for different reasons so that we must take reasons into account. This article advocates that we take people’s broader perspectives into account. I argue that when people form their preferences by aggregating a collection of criteria, then taking these criteria directly into account and considering the broader perspectives and principles held by people will naturally lead to violations of the Pareto principle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"182 - 205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19898866\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19898866","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

帕累托原则是一种关于偏好的规范性原则,主张一致偏好的一致性。然而,人们有观点,而不仅仅是偏好。评估偏好要求我们了解人们选择偏好的原因,以及偏好产生的整体视角。菲利普·蒙金(Philippe Mongin)认为,当不同的人出于不同的原因持有自己的偏好时,帕累托原则就失去了规范性力量,因此我们必须考虑到原因。这篇文章提倡我们考虑人们更广阔的视角。我认为,当人们通过汇总一系列标准来形成自己的偏好时,那么直接考虑这些标准,并考虑人们持有的更广泛的观点和原则,自然会导致违反帕累托原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How perspective-based aggregation undermines the Pareto principle
The Pareto principle is a normative principle about preferences that advocates concordance with unanimous preference. However, people have perspectives not just preferences. Evaluating preferences requires that we understand the reasons that people have for them and the overall perspectives from which they arise. Philippe Mongin has argued that the Pareto principle loses its normative force when different people hold their preferences for different reasons so that we must take reasons into account. This article advocates that we take people’s broader perspectives into account. I argue that when people form their preferences by aggregating a collection of criteria, then taking these criteria directly into account and considering the broader perspectives and principles held by people will naturally lead to violations of the Pareto principle.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Politics, Philosophy & Economics aims to bring moral, economic and political theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies. The Editors are committed to publishing peer-reviewed papers of high quality using various methodologies from a wide variety of normative perspectives. They seek to provide a distinctive forum for discussions and debates among political scientists, philosophers, and economists on such matters as constitutional design, property rights, distributive justice, the welfare state, egalitarianism, the morals of the market, democratic socialism, population ethics, and the evolution of norms.
期刊最新文献
A Farewell Editorial Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience Discursive optimism defended Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1