IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/114825.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Moral Theory of Value ; A Gift Lemma

Author

Listed:
  • Mughal, Adil Ahmad

Abstract

Aside from the calculating and always troublesome utilitarian ethic, a moral theory of value can better serve as a desirable form of the veil of ignorance analogy on the part of the arbitration of allocation procedures. Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard suggested a 'moral absolute' that achieves a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'. This suspension or the veil of ignorance can be formulated as a randomization of allocation procedures across agents in a given preference space; such that, a truly self-interested gain is unpriced and therefore a true gift, that is, a gift without an obligation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mughal, Adil Ahmad, 2022. "The Moral Theory of Value ; A Gift Lemma," MPRA Paper 114825, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:114825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/114825/1/MPRA_paper_114825.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edi Karni & Zvi Safra, 2002. "Individual Sense of Justice: A Utility Representation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 263-284, January.
    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. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    2. Fisman, Raymond & Kariv, Shachar & Markovitz, Daniel, 2005. "Distinguishing Social Preferences from Preferences for Altruism," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9q26c4fr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Ahrens, Steffen & Snower, Dennis J., 2014. "Envy, guilt, and the Phillips curve," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 69-84.
    4. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2018. "Probabilistic social preference: how Machina’s Mom randomizes her choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K., 2012. "Fairness, risk preferences and independence: Impossibility theorems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 606-612.
    6. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak & Zvi Safra, 2010. "Generalized Utilitarianism and Harsanyi's Impartial Observer Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(6), pages 1939-1971, November.
    7. Juan Perote Peña, 2003. "Ethical Implementation and the Creation of Moral Values," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/25, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    8. Stefan Trautmann, 2010. "Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 405-415, April.
    9. Abhinash Borah, 2021. "Individual sense of justice and Harsanyi’s impartial observer," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(1), pages 167-199, July.
    10. Charles Blackorby & David Donaldson & Philippe Mongin, 2004. "Social Aggregation Without the Expected Utility Hypothesis," Working Papers hal-00242932, HAL.
    11. Heufer, Jan, 2014. "Nonparametric comparative revealed risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-616.
    12. Conchita D'Ambrosio & Joachim R. Frick, 2012. "Individual Wellbeing in a Dynamic Perspective," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(314), pages 284-302, April.
    13. Freitas, Luiz & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2009. "The uncertain moral context of price changes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1100-1105, February.
    14. Lionel Page & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2016. "Subjective beliefs about the income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 25-61, June.
    15. Matthijs van Veelen, 2002. "Altruism, Fairness and Evolution: the Case for Repeated Stochastic Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-111/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Nickolas Gagnon & Kristof Bosmans & Arno Riedl, 2020. "The Effect of Unfair Chances and Gender Discrimination on Labor Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 8058, CESifo.
    17. Abhinash Borah, 2019. "Voting Expressively," Working Papers 1012, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    18. Luciano Andreozzi, 2019. "On Being Inequality Averse: Measurement and Behavioral Characterization," DEM Working Papers 2019/10, Department of Economics and Management.
    19. Tigran Melkonyan & Zvi Safra & Sinong Ma, 2021. "Justice in an uncertain world: Evidence on donations to cancer research," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 281-311, June.
    20. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:14:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Social Decision Theory: Choosing within and between Groups," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1591-1636.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Moral value; self-interest; the gift; invariance of domain; social preferences; unpriced preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • C0 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:114825. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.