Fairness versus Welfare
Fairness versus Welfare by Louis Kaplow, published by Harvard University Press on April 30, 2002, is a comprehensive exploration of the criteria by which public policy should be evaluated. This first edition, spanning 576 pages, delves into the longstanding debate between fairness and justice versus individual welfare, highlighting the conflicts that arise when moral principles are applied to welfare considerations. The book draws on insights from various fields, including moral philosophy, economics, and psychology, to challenge conventional views on public policy evaluation.
Readers will find a thorough examination of how nonwelfarist principles can lead to policies that may leave everyone worse off, despite their moral appeal. The authors investigate the origins of moral instincts and intuitions, referencing the works of philosophers like Hume and Sidgwick, while also incorporating contemporary psychological and evolutionary perspectives. Fairness versus Welfare offers significant insights into the implications of these moral principles for policy analysis, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in balancing justice and welfare in public decision-making.
Official synopsis Publisher
By what criteria should public policy be evaluated? Fairness and justice? Or the welfare of individuals? Debate over this fundamental question has spanned the ages.
Fairness versus Welfare poses a bold challenge to contemporary moral philosophy by showing that most moral principles conflict more sharply with welfare than is generally recognized. In particular, the authors demonstrate that all principles that are not based exclusively on welfare will sometimes favor policies under which literally everyone would be worse off. The book draws on the work of moral philosophers, economists, evolutionary and cognitive psychologists, and legal academics to scrutinize a number of particular subjects that have engaged legal scholars and moral philosophers.
How can the deeply problematic nature of all nonwelfarist principles be reconciled with our moral instincts and intuitions that support them? The authors offer a fascinating explanation of the origins of our moral instincts and intuitions, developing ideas originally advanced by Hume and Sidgwick and more recently explored by psychologists and evolutionary theorists. Their analysis indicates that most moral principles that seem appealing, upon examination, have a functional explanation, one that does not justify their being accorded independent weight in the assessment of public policy.
Fairness versus Welfare has profound implications for the theory and practice of policy analysis and has already generated considerable debate in academia.
FAQ
What is “Fairness versus Welfare” about?
Who is the author of “Fairness versus Welfare”?
When was “Fairness versus Welfare” published?
What is the ISBN for “Fairness versus Welfare”?
What are the book details (language, pages, edition)?
