仅仅意味着家长主义?前景理论与“去偏见”福利分析

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Johanna Thoma
{"title":"仅仅意味着家长主义?前景理论与“去偏见”福利分析","authors":"Johanna Thoma","doi":"10.1017/psa.2023.106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Behavioural welfare economics usually aims at mere means paternalism, helping agents better pursue their own goals. This paper discusses one initially promising way to inform policies addressed at agents who violate expected utility theory (EUT), namely what I call ‘CPT debiasing’. I argue that this approach is problematic even if we grant the normative authority of EUT, the descriptive adequacy of CPT (cumulative prospect theory), and the general acceptability of means paternalism. First, it is doubtful whether the CPT utility function measures what its proponents intend. Second, by imposing risk neutrality on agents the approach involves a more problematic paternalism.","PeriodicalId":54620,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Merely Means Paternalist? Prospect Theory and ‘Debiased’ Welfare Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Johanna Thoma\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psa.2023.106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Behavioural welfare economics usually aims at mere means paternalism, helping agents better pursue their own goals. This paper discusses one initially promising way to inform policies addressed at agents who violate expected utility theory (EUT), namely what I call ‘CPT debiasing’. I argue that this approach is problematic even if we grant the normative authority of EUT, the descriptive adequacy of CPT (cumulative prospect theory), and the general acceptability of means paternalism. First, it is doubtful whether the CPT utility function measures what its proponents intend. Second, by imposing risk neutrality on agents the approach involves a more problematic paternalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.106\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.106","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

行为福利经济学通常只针对手段家长制,帮助代理人更好地追求自己的目标。本文讨论了一种最初有希望的方法来通知针对违反预期效用理论(EUT)的代理人的政策,即我所说的“CPT去偏见”。我认为,即使我们承认EUT的规范性权威,CPT(累积前景理论)的描述性充分性,以及手段家长制的普遍可接受性,这种方法也是有问题的。首先,CPT效用函数是否能衡量其支持者的意图是值得怀疑的。其次,通过对代理人施加风险中立,这种做法涉及到一种更有问题的家长式作风。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Merely Means Paternalist? Prospect Theory and ‘Debiased’ Welfare Analysis
Behavioural welfare economics usually aims at mere means paternalism, helping agents better pursue their own goals. This paper discusses one initially promising way to inform policies addressed at agents who violate expected utility theory (EUT), namely what I call ‘CPT debiasing’. I argue that this approach is problematic even if we grant the normative authority of EUT, the descriptive adequacy of CPT (cumulative prospect theory), and the general acceptability of means paternalism. First, it is doubtful whether the CPT utility function measures what its proponents intend. Second, by imposing risk neutrality on agents the approach involves a more problematic paternalism.
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
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, the Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.
×
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