Preferences, reasoning errors, and resource egalitarianism

Volacu, Alexandru

doi:10.1007/s11098-017-0936-z

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, a fact about which the model makes no assumptions might be significant for the outputs, since taking it into account might prove to change the normative principles generated or increase/decrease its desirability or feasibility. Dworkin (1981) makes no explicit assumption about the computational capacities of individuals when defending resource egalitarianism, but if we are to take into account the empirically plausible idea that they can make various types of reasoning errors, his ideal principle of justice faces a feasibility problem and his non-ideal principle of justice faces a desirability problem, as shown by Volacu (2017b). This would therefore be an abstraction in the first sense, but an idealisation in the second sense.…”

Section: On the Ideal/non-ideal Theory Distinction: A Two-dimensionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

Volacu

2017

Political Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many of the recent methodological debates within political theory have focused on the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction. While ideal theorists recognise the need to develop an account of the transition between the two levels of theorising, no general proposal has been advanced thus far. In this article, I aim to bridge this conceptual gap. Towards this end, I first reconstruct the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction within a simplified two-dimensional framework, which captures the primary meanings usually attributed to it. Subsequently, I use this framework to provide an algorithm for the bidirectional transition between ideal and non-ideal theory, based on the incremental derivation of normative models. The approach outlined illuminates the various ways in which principles derived under highly idealised assumptions might be distorted by the circumstances of our current world and illustrates the various paths which we can pursue in moving from our current state of the world to an ideal one.

show abstract

Section: On the Ideal/non-ideal Theory Distinction: A Two-dimensionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

Volacu

2017

Political Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Rare diseases in healthcare priority setting: should rarity matter?

Albertsen

2021

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rare diseases pose a particular priority setting problem. The UK gives rare diseases special priority in healthcare priority setting. Effectively, the National Health Service is willing to pay much more to gain a quality-adjusted life-year related to a very rare disease than one related to a more common condition. But should rare diseases receive priority in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources? This article develops and evaluates four arguments in favour of such a priority. These pertain to public values, luck egalitarian distributive justice the epistemic difficulties of obtaining knowledge about rare diseases and the incentives created by a higher willingness to pay. The first is at odds with our knowledge regarding popular opinion. The three other arguments may provide a reason to fund rare diseases generously. However, they are either overinclusive because they would also justify funding for many non-rare diseases or underinclusive in the sense of justifying priority for only some rare diseases. The arguments thus fail to provide a justification that tracks rareness as such.

show abstract

Preferences, reasoning errors, and resource egalitarianism

Cited by 2 publications

References 35 publications

Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

Rare diseases in healthcare priority setting: should rarity matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About