分配伦理中的校准困境

IF 1.2 2区哲学 Q3 ECONOMICS

Economics and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI:10.1017/S0266267121000298

Jacob M. Nebel, H. Stefánsson

{"title":"分配伦理中的校准困境","authors":"Jacob M. Nebel, H. Stefánsson","doi":"10.1017/S0266267121000298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents a new kind of problem in the ethics of distribution. The problem takes the form of several ‘calibration dilemmas’, in which intuitively reasonable aversion to small-stakes inequalities requires leading theories of distribution to recommend intuitively unreasonable aversion to large-stakes inequalities. We first lay out a series of such dilemmas for prioritarian theories. We then consider a widely endorsed family of egalitarian views and show that they are subject to even more forceful calibration dilemmas than prioritarian theories. Finally, we show that our results challenge common utilitarian accounts of the badness of inequalities in resources.","PeriodicalId":51643,"journal":{"name":"Economics and Philosophy","volume":"39 1","pages":"67 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibration dilemmas in the ethics of distribution\",\"authors\":\"Jacob M. Nebel, H. Stefánsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266267121000298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper presents a new kind of problem in the ethics of distribution. The problem takes the form of several ‘calibration dilemmas’, in which intuitively reasonable aversion to small-stakes inequalities requires leading theories of distribution to recommend intuitively unreasonable aversion to large-stakes inequalities. We first lay out a series of such dilemmas for prioritarian theories. We then consider a widely endorsed family of egalitarian views and show that they are subject to even more forceful calibration dilemmas than prioritarian theories. Finally, we show that our results challenge common utilitarian accounts of the badness of inequalities in resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"67 - 98\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000298\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000298","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本文提出了一个新的分配伦理问题。这个问题表现为几个“校准困境”，在这些困境中，对小风险不平等的直观合理的厌恶需要领先的分布理论来推荐对大风险不平等直观不合理的厌恶。我们首先为先验论提出了一系列这样的困境。然后，我们考虑了一个广受认可的平等主义观点家族，并表明他们比先验理论更容易陷入校准困境。最后，我们表明，我们的研究结果挑战了对资源不平等恶劣程度的常见功利主义解释。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Calibration dilemmas in the ethics of distribution

Abstract This paper presents a new kind of problem in the ethics of distribution. The problem takes the form of several ‘calibration dilemmas’, in which intuitively reasonable aversion to small-stakes inequalities requires leading theories of distribution to recommend intuitively unreasonable aversion to large-stakes inequalities. We first lay out a series of such dilemmas for prioritarian theories. We then consider a widely endorsed family of egalitarian views and show that they are subject to even more forceful calibration dilemmas than prioritarian theories. Finally, we show that our results challenge common utilitarian accounts of the badness of inequalities in resources.

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

Economics and Philosophy Multiple-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The disciplines of economics and philosophy each possess their own special analytical methods, whose combination is powerful and fruitful. Each discipline can be enriched by the other. Economics and Philosophy aims to promote their mutual enrichment by publishing articles and book reviews in all areas linking these subjects. Topics include the methodology and epistemology of economics, the foundations of decision theory and game theory, the nature of rational choice in general, historical work on economics with a philosophical purpose, ethical issues in economics, the use of economic techniques in ethical theory, and many other subjects.