IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/inrvec/v72y2025i2d10.1007_s12232-025-00512-y.html

Social welfare, objective well-being, and natural law

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Arancibia-Collao

    (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Éticas Aplicadas)

Abstract

This paper explores the interplay between social welfare functions (SWF), utility functions, and objective well-being within the framework of natural law ethics. SWF, a central tool in welfare economics, traditionally relies on utility functions to aggregate individual preferences into social well-being measures. However, the preference satisfaction approach inherent in utility functions often conflicts with objective accounts of well-being, such as natural law ethics, which emphasize intrinsic human goods and flourishing. In this paper I argue for the compatibility of subjective preferences and objective values by introducing the concept of idealized preferences—preferences informed by objective ethical values. Integrating natural law ethics, this paper proposes how utility functions can accommodate subjective pro-attitudes while adhering to objective moral values, thereby bridging the gap between economic and philosophical approaches to well-being. The conclusions suggest a robust theoretical framework for aligning economic analysis with moral objectivism, enhancing the applicability of SWF in public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Arancibia-Collao, 2025. "Social welfare, objective well-being, and natural law," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 72(2), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00512-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s12232-025-00512-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12232-025-00512-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12232-025-00512-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    2. Mark Schneider & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2020. "The utilitarian–maximin social welfare function and anomalies in social choice," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(2), pages 629-646, October.
    3. Sunstein, Cass R., 2020. "Behavioral Welfare Economics," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 196-220, July.
    4. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
    5. Gaertner, Wulf, 2009. "A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199565306.
    6. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    7. Adler, Matthew D., 2016. "Aggregating Moral Preferences," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 283-321, July.
    8. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2007. "Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 464-470, May.
    9. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    10. David A. Comerford & Leonhard K. Lades, 2022. "Responsibility utility and the difference between preference and desirance: implications for welfare evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 201-224, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2012. "Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 553-567, April.
    2. Daniel Serra, 2019. "Neuroeconomics and modern neuroscience," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-02160907, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    3. Leonardo Ivarola & Gustavo Marqués, 2012. "Behavioural Procedural Models – a multipurpose mechanistic account," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 5(2), pages 84-108, May.
    4. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.
    5. Dalton, P.S. & Ghosal, S., 2010. "Decisions with Endogenous Frames (Replaces CentER DP 2010-21)," Other publications TiSEM c4b257a4-972b-4e4b-a68e-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Anna Alexandrova & Daniel M. Haybron, 2011. "High-Fidelity Economics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2020. "Welfare Economics in Large Worlds: Welfare and Public Policies in an Uncertain Environment," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-08, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    8. Guilhem Lecouteux & Ivan Mitrouchev, 2025. "Inferring welfare from inconsistent choices: how values matter," Post-Print hal-05167776, HAL.
    9. Ramzi Mabsout, 2022. "John Stuart Mill, soft paternalist," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 161-186, January.
    10. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    11. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    12. Patricio Dalton & Sayantan Ghosal, 2012. "Decisions with endogenous frames," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 585-600, April.
    13. Bronwyn Coate & Robert Hoffmann, 2022. "The behavioural economics of culture," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 46(1), pages 3-26, March.
    14. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    15. Asen Ivanov, 2021. "Optimal pension plan default policies when employees are biased," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(3), pages 583-596, June.
    16. Kevin D. Hoover, 2016. "The Crisis in Economic Theory: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1350-1361, December.
    17. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    18. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2013. "The Ideal Economy: A Prototype," MPRA Paper 51582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Markus Haavio & Kaisa Kotakorpi, 2012. "Sin Licenses Revisited," CESifo Working Paper Series 4010, CESifo.
    20. Malte Dold, 2025. "Endogenous preferences: a challenge to constitutional political economy’s normative foundation?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 424-443, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00512-y. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.