IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v20y2004i01p209-215_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reply To Ripstein: Notes On Welfarist Versus Deontological Principles

Author

Listed:
  • Kaplow, Louis
  • Shavell, Steven

Abstract

In Fairness versus Welfare (FVW), we advance the thesis that social policies should be assessed entirely with regard to their effects on individuals' well-being. That is, no independent weight should be accorded to notions of fairness such as corrective or retributive justice or other deontological principles. Our claim is based on the demonstration that pursuit of notions of fairness has perverse effects on welfare, on other problematic aspects of the notions, and on a reconciliation of our thesis with the evident appeal of moral intuitions. Here we summarize our three arguments and explain that Professor Ripstein's commentary largely fails to respond to them. (We will pass over some of what he says because it has little to do with our book, and we will not address his rather surprising attacks on our scholarship because the reader can readily verify their inaccuracy.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 2004. "Reply To Ripstein: Notes On Welfarist Versus Deontological Principles," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 209-215, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:20:y:2004:i:01:p:209-215_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267104001300/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:20:y:2004:i:01:p:209-215_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.