IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/utilit/v19y2007i04p487-504_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pairwise Comparison and Numbers Skepticism

Author

Listed:
  • HSIEH, NIEN-HÊ
  • STRUDLER, ALAN
  • WASSERMAN, DAVID

Abstract

In this article, we defend pairwise comparison as a method to resolve conflicting claims from different people that cannot be jointly satisfied because of a scarcity of resources. We consider Michael Otsuka's recent challenge that pairwise comparison leads to intransitive choices for the ‘numbers skeptic’ (someone who believes the numbers should not count in forced choices among lives) and Frances Kamm's responses to Otsuka's challenge. We argue that Kamm's responses do not succeed, but that the threat they are designed to meet is illusory. Once the method of pairwise comparison is understood in a manner consistent with its proposed use, the challenge disappears. In making this argument, we examine questions about the interpretation of pairwise comparison and maintain that it must be understood as a method for ensuring that decisions are justifiable from the perspective of each affected individual.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsieh, Nien-Hãš & Strudler, Alan & Wasserman, David, 2007. "Pairwise Comparison and Numbers Skepticism," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 487-504, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:19:y:2007:i:04:p:487-504_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820807002762/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:utilit:v:19:y:2007:i:04:p:487-504_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/uti .

    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.