Towards a critique of the concepts of solidarity and discrimination as applied in inter-temporal analyses of the so-called global problems
The authors' approach to the ethical and political aspects of inter-temporal interactions is the following: 1) Two representative agents Ra and RÃ¢ are analyzed and asymmetries in their wealth and voting powers are dealt with by a the text-book tool of a welfare function - its intra and inter-temporal application. 2) A generalized concept of a distance (measured in miles and years, respectively) is to indicate to what extend similarities and differences can be reasonably expected between Ra and RÃ¢ - their interests and values. With respect to a given distance, a discount factor then represents the weight that Ra ascribes to the well-being of his counter-party RÃ¢. 3) In the intra-temporal case, the intuitive appeal of the concepts of solidarity, justice and discrimination is accepted, as well as the resultant transfers of wealth from the richer Ra" to his relatively poorer contemporary fellow RÃ¢. 4) Contrariwise, the very concepts easily loose sense in the inter-temporal case. The arguments for this difference are that: (a) the same person may act as both Ra and RÃ¢; the future RÃ¢ may be but a new sample of a given man, household, firm, nation … or even mankind itself, (b) wealth is likely to grow with the time-distance between the future RÃ¢ and the present decision maker Ra, (c) unlike the geographical distance, a time horizon is infinite; the future RÃ¢ may exist whenever - 10 days, 20 months or 17 000 years from now, (d) an interest rate or investment possibilities affect the present Ra's wealth or budget constraint. 5) With the level of aggregation of Ra and RÃ¢, the analytical problems become still more eminent. Should then the two agents represent a mankind as a whole, it appears impossible to identify at what point of the future RÃ¢ lives - even if we managed to interpret the interests and preferences of us all today as Ra. A message is passed to natural scientists that they cross over to social analyses whenever they add valuations to their data - in a form of warnings not to mention regulatory proposals - and that as visitors they should respect the state of art of the contemporary social science, including its genuine advisory capacity, namely to globally established policy-makers. Hence, any regulatory constraint on our liberties and freedoms must be always viewed as an outcome of a political struggle - never then as a victory of a modern science, as the currently prevailing rhetoric may suggest.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 2007 (2007)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (02) 24 09 51 11
Fax: (02) 24 22 06 57
Web page: http://www.vse.cz/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: Redakce Politické ekonomie, Vysoká škola ekonomická, nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3|
Web: http://www.vse.cz/polek/ Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prg:jnlpol:v:2007:y:2007:i:6:id:621:p:723-750. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Vaclav Subrta)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.