Is the Person-Affecting Intuition Paradoxical?

This article critically examines some of the inconsistency objections that have been put forward by John Broome, Larry Temkin and others against the so-called "person-affecting," or "person-based," restriction in normative ethics, including "extra people" problems and a version of the nonidentity problem from Kavka and Parfit. Certain Pareto principles and a version of the "mere addition paradox" are discussed along the way. The inconsistencies at issue can be avoided, it is argued, by situating the person-affecting intuition within a non-additive form of maximizing consequentialism – a theory which then competes with such additive, or aggregative, forms of maximizing consequentialism as "totalism" and "averagism."     

Fortune,Risk, and Remittances: An Application of Option Theory to Participation in Village‐Based Migration Networks1

相似文献   

Reciprocal nature of parent-infant interaction: implications for child maltreatment.

Exploration of the infant's role in creating a potentially abusive situation suggests a different orientation for child maltreatment programs.     

Objective interpersonal comparisons of utility

 This paper examines the problem of distilling conflicting interpersonal comparisons into a single set of interpersonal comparisons. The mapping that achieves this has a richer co-domain than all social choice problems (and a richer domain than most social choice problems). The set of mappings satisfying a mild set of restrictions is very small. If interpersonal comparisons embody ratio-scale comparability then the mapping is Cobb–Douglas in form; if interpersonal comparisons embody no more than level and difference comparability then the mapping must be dictatorial and it is impossible to combine different interpersonal comparisons. Received: 16 February 1995/Accepted: 13 October 1995     

On the relationship between levinson recursion and the r and s arrays for arma model identification

Motivated by the papers of Woodward and Gray (1979) and Gray, Kelly and McIntire (1978) on the R and S array approach to ARMA modeling, the authors show that the R and S array algorithm is completely equivalent to Levinson recursion. Since entries in the R and S array can be computed by either algorithm, the equivalence provides greater insight into the R and S methodology as well as its links to Akaike's AIC or FPE. Numerical simulations serve to highlight the differences between the various approaches as well as illustrate the problems associated with exact methods. The K and S array approach is shown to be an effective procedure for determining ARMA model orders.