Authors
Jake Nebel
University of Southern California
Abstract
The most rigorous framework for theorizing about the measurement and aggregation of value is the framework of social welfare functionals developed by Amartya Sen. In this framework, a social or overall betterness ordering is assigned to each possible profile of real-valued utility functions. Different possibilities for the measurability and interpersonal comparability of well-being are captured, in this framework, by invariance conditions, which require the same ordering to be assigned to profiles that are deemed informationally equivalent. But these invariance conditions are highly restrictive and it is not clear whether they really follow from the underlying measurability/comparability possibilities with which they are associated. The alternative framework developed in this paper cuts out the middleman of utilities, replacing them with the properties that utilities are supposed to represent. This allows us to define the measurability/comparability possibilities directly, without the use of any invariance condition, and to state social welfare functionals that violate the standard invariance conditions without requiring inadmissible information. This suggests that the invariance conditions cannot be justified in the standard way. But they do follow from a simple principle that can be motivated by some familiar considerations from the metaphysics of quantities. I conclude by considering the case for this principle.
Keywords social welfare functionals  utility functions  invariance conditions  absolutism vs. comparativism  measurement theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
The Tools of Metaphysics and the Metaphysics of Science.Theodore Sider - 2020 - Oxford, England and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
Weighing Lives.John Broome - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
Metaphysical Rationalism.Shamik Dasgupta - 2016 - Noûs 50 (2):379-418.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Machian Comparativism About Mass.Niels C. M. Martens - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axz013.
Invariant Multiattribute Utility Functions.Ali E. Abbas - 2010 - Theory and Decision 68 (1-2):69-99.
Utils and Shmutils.Jacob M. Nebel - 2021 - Ethics 131 (3):571-599.
‘Ramseyfying’ Probabilistic Comparativism.Edward Elliott - 2020 - Philosophy of Science 87 (4):727-754.
Some Subrecursive Versions of Grzegorczyk's Uniformity Theorem.Dimiter Skordev - 2004 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 50 (45):520-524.
Social Norms or Social Preferences?Ken Binmore - 2010 - Mind and Society 9 (2):139-157.
Utility Theory and Ethics.Mongin Philippe & D'Aspremont Claude - 1998 - In Salvador Barbera, Paul Hammond & Christian Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory Volume1: Principles. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 371-481.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-08-28

Total views
468 ( #18,019 of 2,463,171 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
468 ( #750 of 2,463,171 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes