Cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Revus Pub Date : 2019-05-24 DOI:10.4000/REVUS.4515
Mark A. Geistfeld
{"title":"Cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism","authors":"Mark A. Geistfeld","doi":"10.4000/REVUS.4515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welfarism is the principle that the goodness of a social state is an increasing function of individual welfare and does not depend on anything else. As Gregory Keating argues in the lead article for this symposium, welfarism cannot account for important normative differences between physical security and liberty, leading him to conclude that liberal egalitarian principles rule out cost-benefit analysis for setting health and safety standards. Despite its apparent logic, the idea that economic analysis is incompatible with or irrelevant to a rights-based principle of fairness is mistaken. Tort law shows why a legal system that protects the individual right to physical security can be usefully guided by the methodology of cost-benefit analysis. Welfare does not have to be the master value in order to be relevant, creating an integral role for cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism.","PeriodicalId":38165,"journal":{"name":"Revus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/REVUS.4515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Welfarism is the principle that the goodness of a social state is an increasing function of individual welfare and does not depend on anything else. As Gregory Keating argues in the lead article for this symposium, welfarism cannot account for important normative differences between physical security and liberty, leading him to conclude that liberal egalitarian principles rule out cost-benefit analysis for setting health and safety standards. Despite its apparent logic, the idea that economic analysis is incompatible with or irrelevant to a rights-based principle of fairness is mistaken. Tort law shows why a legal system that protects the individual right to physical security can be usefully guided by the methodology of cost-benefit analysis. Welfare does not have to be the master value in order to be relevant, creating an integral role for cost-benefit analysis outside of welfarism.
福利主义之外的成本效益分析
福利主义是这样一种原则,即社会状态的良好是个人福利的一个不断增长的功能,而不依赖于其他任何东西。正如格雷戈里·基廷在本次研讨会的主要文章中所说,福利主义无法解释人身安全和自由之间重要的规范差异,这使他得出结论,自由平等主义原则排除了制定健康和安全标准的成本效益分析。尽管有明显的逻辑,但认为经济分析与基于权利的公平原则不相容或无关的观点是错误的。侵权行为法表明,为什么保护个人人身安全权利的法律制度可以有效地受到成本效益分析方法的指导。福利不一定要成为相关的主要价值,这为福利主义之外的成本效益分析创造了一个不可或缺的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revus
Revus Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信