Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:30:09.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting costs and benefits of ordeals together

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Anders Herlitz Open the ORCID record for Anders Herlitz [Opens in a new window]
Anders Herlitz*
Affiliation:
Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses how to think about the permissibility of introducing deadweight costs (so-called ‘ordeals’) on candidate recipients of goods in order to attain better outcomes. The paper introduces some distinctions between different kinds of value dimensions that should be taken into account when such judgements are made and draws from the literature on comparisons across different value dimensions in order to canvas what sort of situations one might arguably face when evaluating ordeals. In light of the distinctions drawn and the possibilities canvassed, the paper proceeds to outline what circumstances indicate which of the possible situations one is in.

Keywords

ordealstarget efficiencyincommensurabilitysuperiority in valuecomparisons
Type
Symposium Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 37 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue on Ethics of Economic Ordeals , March 2021 , pp. 37 - 49
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, G. 2005. Superiority in value. Philosophical Studies 123, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, G. and Rabinowicz, W.. 2015. Value superiority. In The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory, ed. Hirose, I. and Olson, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1997. Is incommensurability vagueness? In Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, ed. Chang, R.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2009. Reply to Rabinowicz. Philosophical Issues 19, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E. 2010. Parity demystified. Theoria 76, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2002. The possibility of parity. Ethics 112, 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2013. Grounding practical normativity: going hybrid. Philosophical Studies 164, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K., Stremikis, K., Squires, D. and Schoen, C.. 2014. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
Dupas, P., Hoffmann, V., Kremer, M. and Peterson Zwane, A.. 2016. Targeting health subsidies through a nonprice mechanism: a randomized control trial in Kenya. Science 353, 889–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elson, L. 2017. Incommensurability as vagueness: a burden-shifting argument. Theoria 83, 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyal, N., Romain, P.L. and Robertson, C.. 2018. Can rationing through inconvenience be ethical? The Hastings Center Report 48, 10–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fröding, B. and Peterson, M.. 2012. Virtuous choice and parity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghaeus, A. MS. Ordeals, women and gender justice.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, D.M. MS. Ordeals, inequalities, and moral hazards in health care.Google Scholar
Herlitz, A. 2019. Nondeterminacy, two-step models, and justified choice. Ethics 129, 284–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, A.L. and Zeckhauser, R.J.. 1982. Targeting transfers through restrictions on recipients. American Economic Review 72, 372–377.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2008. Value relations. Theoria 74, 18–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J. 2016. Free Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J. MS. The costs of using time to target the provision of basic goods.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1997. Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65, 745–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2017. Reason and justice: the optimal and the maximal. Philosophy 92, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. Forthcoming. Sludge and ordeals. Duke Law Journal.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. 2004. Indeterminacy, ignorance and the possibility of parity. Philosophical Perspectives 18, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeckhauser, R.J. MS. Strategic Sorting: The Role of Ordeals in Health Care.Google Scholar