IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v5y1989i02p189-208_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Brennan, Timothy J.

Abstract

One of the fundamental components of the concept of economic rationality is that preference orderings are “complete,†i.e., that all alternative actions an economic agent can take are comparable (Arrow, 1951; De-breu, 1959). The idea that all actions can be ranked may be called the single utility assumption. The attractiveness of this assumption is considerable. It would be hard to fathom what choice among alternatives means if the available alternatives cannot be ranked by the chooser in some way. In addition, the efficiency criterion makes sense only if one can infer that an individual's choice reflects the best, in expected welfare terms, among all choices that individual could have made (Sen, 1982a). The possibility that a rearrangement of resources could make someone “better off†without making others “worse off†can be understood only if the post-rearrangement world is comparable with the pre-rearrange-ment world.

Suggested Citation

  • Brennan, Timothy J., 1989. "A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frameworks," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 189-208, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:5:y:1989:i:02:p:189-208_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267100002388/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Knox, Trevor M., 1999. "The volunteer's folly and socio-economic man: some thoughts on altruism, rationality, and community," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 475-492.
    2. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2006. "The Shadow Price of Morality," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 437-456, Summer.
    3. S. Abu Turab Rizvi, 2001. "Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 141-159.
    4. Donna Rowen & Michael Dietrich, 2004. "Incorporating Ethics into Economics: Problems and Possibilities," Working Papers 2004006, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2004.
    5. Lanse Minkler, 1999. "The Problem with Utility: Toward a Non-Consequentialist/Utility Theory Synthesis," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(1), pages 4-24.
    6. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    7. Karl-Dieter Opp, 2013. "Norms and rationality. Is moral behavior a form of rational action?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 383-409, March.
    8. Kangas, Olli E., 1997. "Self-interest and the common good: The impact of norms, selfishness and context in social policy opinions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 475-494.
    9. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Elias L. Khalil, 1995. "On the scope of economics : what is the question?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 40-55, Spring.
    11. Mann, Stefan, 2003. "Why organic food in Germany is a merit good," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 459-469.
    12. Stefan Mann, 2006. "Merit goods in a utilitarian framework," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 509-520.
    13. Stephen J. Meardon & Andreas Ortmann, 1996. "Self-Command In Adam Smith'S Theory Of Moral Sentiments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(1), pages 57-80, February.
    14. Tomer, John F., 1996. "Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 619-638.
    15. Joseph Eisenhauer, 2004. "Economic Models of Sin and Remorse: Some Simple Analytics," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(2), pages 201-219.
    16. Rauschmeyer, F., 1998. "Minimierung ökonomischer Verzerrung bei Ausgleichszahlungen für eine umweltschonende Landwirtschaft," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 34.
    17. Elodie Brahic & Valérie Clément & Nathalie Moureau & Marion Vidal, 2008. "A la recherche des Merit Goods," Working Papers 08-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2008.
    18. Mark White, 2006. "Multiple utilities and weakness of will: A kantian perspective," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(1), pages 1-20.

    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:5:y:1989:i:02:p:189-208_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.