Choosing the Best Social Order: New Principles of Justice and Normative Dimensions of Choice

Abstract

There are many standard rules of aggregating individual preferences; majority rule is but one example. These rules determine what we typically consider to be a fair or a just solution to the problem of social choice. Yet we know very little, either about how these solutions relate to what a person, not a rule, would choose as a fair outcome or about what ethical or political beliefs would guide people in their choices. An empirical study was conducted to address these problems. As standard normative solutions fail to explain choices obtained in the study, we propose a new set of solutions, which generalize two classical principles of justice: Rawlsian and conservative. These generalized solutions fit the data remarkably well. More important, they uncover two normative dimensions within which choices turn out to be very consistent. These dimensions, we conjecture, indicate subjects' underlying attitudes. We use this theory to compare ethical-political attitudes in samples from Poland, Japan, and the United States.

Two Measures of the Dependence of Preferential Rankings on Categorical Variables

“…Axioms (A.2) and (A.3) are decisive however. Other axiomatizations of this measure have also been developed (e.g., by Lissowski & Swistak 1995). It is sometimes called a city metric because its axiomatic definition contains a condition that presupposes the relation of "lying between" (A.1.3).…”

Computer Tools for Crafting Clear and Attractive Diagrams in Social Science

“…I . Ease of drawing APSR diagram (see Figure 3)-This diagram, adapted from a recent article published in the American Political Science Review (Lissowski & Swistak, 1995, p. 84), represents a land mine for both software categories and for users who are new to a particular program. Most of the diagram-building programs cannot reproduce this diagram at all, and it is far from easy to manage even with the CAD programs.…”