欲望、偏好与森的自由悖论

M. Holler
{"title":"欲望、偏好与森的自由悖论","authors":"M. Holler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2553883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, Sen’s Liberal Paradox is used to discuss differences between desires and preferences and the relationship between these two concepts. Desires and preferences can mix in real life and in theorizing. In fact, it seems that the mixing of desires and preferences can explain many of the inconsistencies that people show in decision making, especially in experiments that take place in laboratories, but also in theorizing. A power analysis and a game theoretical model of Sen’s example of reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover illustrate the problem of mixing desires and preferences. The paper discusses the question: Are there preferences on desires and are these preferences different from preferences on alternatives?","PeriodicalId":299964,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Action eJournal","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Desires, Preferences and Sen's Liberal Paradox\",\"authors\":\"M. Holler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2553883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, Sen’s Liberal Paradox is used to discuss differences between desires and preferences and the relationship between these two concepts. Desires and preferences can mix in real life and in theorizing. In fact, it seems that the mixing of desires and preferences can explain many of the inconsistencies that people show in decision making, especially in experiments that take place in laboratories, but also in theorizing. A power analysis and a game theoretical model of Sen’s example of reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover illustrate the problem of mixing desires and preferences. The paper discusses the question: Are there preferences on desires and are these preferences different from preferences on alternatives?\",\"PeriodicalId\":299964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Action eJournal\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Action eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2553883\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Action eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2553883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文运用森的自由悖论来探讨欲望与偏好之间的区别以及两者之间的关系。欲望和偏好可以在现实生活和理论中混合在一起。事实上,欲望和偏好的混合似乎可以解释人们在决策中表现出的许多不一致,特别是在实验室进行的实验中,但也在理论中。森以阅读《查泰莱夫人的情人》为例,通过权力分析和博弈论模型说明了欲望和偏好混合的问题。本文讨论了这样一个问题:是否存在对欲望的偏好,这些偏好是否不同于对替代选择的偏好?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Desires, Preferences and Sen's Liberal Paradox
In this paper, Sen’s Liberal Paradox is used to discuss differences between desires and preferences and the relationship between these two concepts. Desires and preferences can mix in real life and in theorizing. In fact, it seems that the mixing of desires and preferences can explain many of the inconsistencies that people show in decision making, especially in experiments that take place in laboratories, but also in theorizing. A power analysis and a game theoretical model of Sen’s example of reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover illustrate the problem of mixing desires and preferences. The paper discusses the question: Are there preferences on desires and are these preferences different from preferences on alternatives?
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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