An Analysis of “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal” In this paper I will be discussing Amartya Sen’s article, “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.” More specifically, I will be discussing what the article says about social choice. First, I will introduce some terms that will be used throughout the paper. Next, I will introduce the theorems that Sen uses to prove his point. After that, I will explain his proof. Then, I will explain the example that Sen gives at the end of his article. Following that, I will provide several different ways to resolve Sen’s problem. Sen’s article shows us that there is no social choice function that can satisfy the condition of unrestricted domain (U), Pareto Principle (P), and liberalism (L/L*) at the same time which leads to the thought that one cannot have liberal values and pursue Pareto efficiency at the same time. Before delving in to an analysis of Sen’s article, I will define a couple of terms. The definition of liberalism (L) is that for an individual i, such that if this individual prefers x to y, then society should prefer x to y and if this individual prefers y to x, then society should prefer y to x. (L* is same but instead of having only one individual, it’s two individuals.) Next is Pareto efficiency. Pareto efficiency is the state where it is impossible to make an individual better off without harming another individual. Not only is there Pareto efficiency, there is also the Pareto Principle which states that if every citizen prefers a to b, then society must prefer a to b. Unrestricted domain is that the social welfare function must yield an output for every preference profile. So these three terms liberalism, Pareto efficiency, and unrestricted domain are conditions th... ... middle of paper ... ...g to go though all the trouble to get his way on something, then that would mean that he has a strong preference for it. If Lewd is willing to lie and make a scene to get his way, then that would mean that his preferences are even stronger than Prude’s. In conclusion, Amartya Sen’s article, “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal” is a proof of how social choice cannot satisfy all three conditions of unrestricted domain, Pareto principle, and liberalism at the same time. In the first part of this paper I explained a number of terms that Sen uses in his article. In the next part of my paper, I explained Sen’s theorems and his proof of the theorems. Following that, I analyzed how the Lady Chatterly’s Lover example helped to clarify and solidify Sen’s main argument in the article. And then lastly, I provided a series of ways to avoid Sen’s problem.
Roemer, John E. (1996), ‘Equality of Welfare versus Equality of Resources’ in Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 236-261.
Cook, K., Levi, M., O'Brien, J., & Faye, H. (2008). Introduction: The limits of rationality. In K. Cook & M. Levi (Eds.), The Limits of Rationality (pp. 02-47). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7M82yReFf4sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=social exchange and rational choice theory definition
He then further explains the growth pattern between those eras which has led to the current ideology of liberal democracy. He believes that liberal democracy is the best ideology and that it is the final stage in human ideological development. He further suggested that human history should be viewed as a progression or battle of ideologies. With the current trend of universalization of liberal democracy and individualism, both characteristics of Western culture, he argues that Western liberal democracy has become the grand victor. He also asserts that despite the liberal democratic ideology has not completely been realized in the material world, the idea has been accepted and has triumphed over all alternate ideologies.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
Modern liberalism and modern conservatism are both political outlooks that involve acceptance or support of the balance of the degree of social equality and social inequality; while they tend to avoid political changes that would result in extreme deviation of society to either side. Modern liberalism and modern conservatism tend not to be as centrist or middle-of-the-road ideologies as they once could be. Ideology is a set of ideas and beliefs that guide the goals, expectations, and actions of a group (Webster’s Dictionary). Individuals who are conservative or liberal tend to have views that align within a political party, whether it be Republican or democratic, but this is not always the case. There are conservative democrats, such as, Jim Costa and Jim Cooper and there are liberal republicans, such as, Nathaniel Banks and George Washington Julian. Another name for conservative democrats would be blue dog democrats while the nickname for liberal republicans is the Rockefeller republicans. These two ideologies tend to be more of the centrist ideologies. Modern liberals tend to be members of the Democratic Party because they support a wide range of welfare programs and government support of the public sector and tighter corporate regulations (PP Modern Liberalism). U.S. Conservatism evolved from classical liberalism, which makes them similar, yet there is many differences between modern conservatism and modern liberalism. There are principles and tenets that govern each ideology. A tenant is a belief or idea that is held as being true from a group (Webster’s Dictionary). In understanding both ideologies, it is imperative to have an understanding of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was built on ideas from the seventeenth ...
Drawing from the difference principle, inequalities in wealth and income can be justified if all parties benefit as a result. In comparison to the alternative interpretations of natural liberty and liberal equality, a system of democratic equality holds to “pure procedural justice…[although] this still leaves too much to social and natural contingency” (Rawls, 69). Given this notion, however, the difference principle is fully “compatible with the principle of efficiency” (Rawls, 69). When tying the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity, it ensures that while individuals may have drastically different situations, the situations themselves are justified as long as the structure serves to “improve the expectations of the least advantaged...
The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I
RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is it rational to have if action alone will not make a huge ölçüt ölçüt rtance of even the smallest amount of donation. It would not not be unfair to argue one person giving a tuppence will make a small difference, if it will have any effect at all. This makes one wonder if one is morally free from acting in a moral way if one’s actions will have negligible impact. This kind of thinking is not only popular but it is also seen in many branches of contemporary life; from economics to voting in elections. Is one ought to pay taxes, or vote, for instance — if their individual contribution gets lost in the crowd. This problem is commonly referred to as the free rider problem; meaning, free riding on decent actions of others. This paper will argue that although free riding is being rational in his actions, his actions lack moral grounds, and therefore should be persuaded to act against his moral ideas.
In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.
When man disavows opportunity cost and its intergenerational implications, they constrict the range of options available to current and future generations. In fact, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness now become infringed. This becomes the duty of the sovereign: to promote equal terms to each individual within a community or more generally speaking, society. Without the balance of power offered between the government and the people, there would be no state of well being and contentment.
In his article, Democracy as a Universal Value, Amartya Sen asserts that democracy is a universal value. In order to develop his argument Sen needs to state his definition of democracy and define what he means by universal value. In the course of Sen's argument he gives his view of the relationship between democracy and the economy. He then defends his view of democracy as a universal value against a main argument that deals with cultural differences between regions.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
It has been contested that deontic egalitarianism is also susceptible to the levelling down objection, despite Parfit’s claim otherwise. Notably, O’Neill argues that a substantive version of the deontic view, states that our “duty to treat people on the basis of equality…involves a duty to promote distributive equality”, fails to avoid it. This substantive version permits distribution such that some individuals are made worse off and none better off, which is precisely the force of the levelling down objection. However, O’Neill does concede that Parfit provides a response to this critique given that deontic egalitarians only “have a reason to remove inequality only when, and only because, [their] way of doing so benefits the people who are worse off”. That is, this narrower deontic view only accepts reasons for levelling up towards equality but not levelling down and thereby avoids the levelling down objection. It is uncharitable of O’Neill to state that no “general case” of deontic egalitarianism can avoid the levelling down objection given that Parfit’s very prescription of the deontic view is identical to the narrower “formal version” of O’Neill’s. Therefore, deontic egalitarianism is in fact not susceptible to the same objection which unhinges the telic
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
The scope of this paper will examine the notion of equality with respect to the value of life as it is contained in the argument between Tom Regan and R.G. Frey. Regan maintains that “all who have inherent value have it equally” (Regan 66). Frey, conversely, maintains that not all lives can be of equal inherent value since the potential for enrichment is not equal for all lives. Taking both arguments into consideration, the remainder of this paper will attempt to reconcile these arguments, suggesting that a sensible compromise is possible.