Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 3

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: diminishing marginal utility

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Repugnancy, Marginalism, Transitivity, and Population Ethics

100%

Wiśniewski J. B.

Ekonomia. Wrocław Economic Review

2015

tom 21

nr 3

21-37

This paper attempts to build upon the “marginalist” solutions to various puzzles in the area of population ethics, including the so-called Repugnant Conclusion (seen as a major obstacle to the viability of the Total Utility Principle), the Ecstatic Psychopath Scenario (seen as a major obstacle to the viability of the Average Utility Principle) and the Negative Repugnant Conclusion. After rejecting the suggestion that the above puzzles should be resolved by abandoning the axiom of transitivity, I argue that the solution lies in the principle of diminishing marginal utility, whose effects apply not only to every individual added to any given population, but, even more importantly, also to the already existing members of that population.

Response to Wysocki on indifference

100%

Block W.

Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce

2022

nr 72

37-62

Nozick (1977) was a critique of the view of Austrian economics which rejected the notion of indifference in human action. This author claimed that this stance was incompatible with the notion of the supply of a good, and, also, with diminishing marginal utility, both of which were strongly supported by this praxeological school of thought. Block (1980) was an attempt to rescue the Austrian school from this brilliant intellectual challenge. Hoppe (2005; 2009) rejected Nozick’s challenge, and, also, Block’s (1980) response. Block (2009a) and Block and Barnett (2010), defended Block’s (1980) analysis of indifference. The latest contribution to this ongoing discussion is Wysocki (2021) who maintains that Hoppe was correct in his rejection of Nozick, while Block was not. The present paper is a rejoinder to Wysocki (2021).

Response to Wysocki’s Rejoinder to Block on indifference

75%

Block W.

Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce

2024

nr 76

481-502

Wysocki (2024) is a critique of Block (2022). The present paper is a response to the former. We are in effect debating the best reaction to Nozick (1977) which criticized Austrian economics on the ground that it makes two claims that are incompatible with one another. On the one hand, the praxeological school is noted for its aversion to the concept of indifference. On the other hand, the Austrian school also accepts supply and demand curves, and diminishing marginal utility. These three concepts imply homogeneous elements that comprise them. But if they are truly homogeneous, people ought to be indifferent between the different elements of them. Hence, the tension, not to say logical contradiction, in this perspective. Block (1980) was an attempt to respond to Nozick (1977). Hoppe (2005a,b; 2009) and Wysocki (2016; 2017; 2021; 2024) who supports Hoppe, maintain that Block’s refutation of Nozick (1977) was not efficacious at all, at worst, or at best, certainly not fully successful.Specifically, Wysocki maintains that there is a bifurcation between choosing and preferring; for example, no one is even aware of which foot goes first when entering a restaurant, and, yet, one has to make a choice about it. He avers that it is entirely possible to prefer to save either son, equally, while actually picking one, and not the other.