Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Cardinal utility
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Welfare economics=== Among welfare economists of the utilitarian school it has been the general tendency to take satisfaction (in some cases, pleasure) as the unit of welfare. If the function of welfare economics is to contribute data which will serve the social philosopher or the statesman in the making of welfare judgments, this tendency leads perhaps, to a hedonistic ethics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Viner |first1=Jacob |date=December 1925 |title=The Utility Concept in Value Theory and Its Critics II |journal=Journal of Political Economy |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=638β659 |doi=10.1086/253725 |jstor=1822261|s2cid=222430888 }}</ref> Under this framework, actions (including production of goods and provision of services) are judged by their contributions to the subjective wealth of people. In other words, it provides a way of judging the "greatest good to the greatest number of persons". An act that reduces one person's utility by 75 utils while increasing two others' by 50 utils each has increased overall utility by 25 utils and is thus a positive contribution; one that costs the first person 125 utils while giving the same 50 each to two other people has resulted in a net loss of 25 utils. If a class of utility functions is cardinal, intrapersonal comparisons of utility differences are allowed. If, in addition, some comparisons of utility are meaningful interpersonally, the linear transformations used to produce the class of utility functions must be restricted across people. An example is cardinal unit comparability. In that information environment, admissible transformations are increasing affine functions and, in addition, the scaling factor must be the same for everyone. This information assumption allows for interpersonal comparisons of utility differences, but utility levels cannot be compared interpersonally because the intercept of the affine transformations may differ across people.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Blackorby |first1=Charles |last2=Bossert |first2=Walter |last3=Donaldson |first3=David |title=Utilitarianism and the Theory of Justice |editor1-last=Arrow |editor1-first=Kenneth |editor2-last=Sen |editor2-first=Amartya |editor3-last=Suzumura |editor3-first=Kotaru |work=Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare |date=2002 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-444-82914-6 |page=552 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rh10cOpltLsC&pg=PA552}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)