Comparing Kant's Argument Of Pareto Efficiency

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

Situations where self interest and public interest work against each other are known as “commons problems.” In the market model the chief source of conflict is individual’s perceived welfare vs. another’s perceived welfare. In the polis model the chief source of conflict is self interest vs. public interest, or “how to have both private benefits and collective benefits.” Stone notes “most actions in the market model do not have social consequences” but in the polis, commons problems “are everything.” It is rare in the polis that the costs and benefits of an action are entirely self-contained, affect only one or two individuals, or are limited to direct and immediate effects. Actions in the polis have unanticipated consequences, side effects, long-term effects, and effect many people. Stone states, “one major dilemma in the polis is how to get people to give weight to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.” That is a

the allocation should be based on the underlying economics of the situation rather than the motives of individuals.

The first principle in individual decision-making is facing a trade-off. In order for individuals to accomplish their goals or to obtain something they desire, there is usually something that must be given up or traded to accomplish that. In Chapter 1 Principles of Economics, efficiency vs. equity is discussed which helps further explain this principle. Society is always desiring to

Chapter 8: A question that has stuck with Wheelan for years, asked by one of his peers was, “If people know so much about public policy, then why is everything so messed up” (175)? The reason for that is because it leads to something far more significant: Even when economists reach consensus on policies that would be to our advantage, they frequently run into political opposition. And when it comes to interest groups in politics, it pays to be small because the tail can wag the dog. This can have a huge impact on the economy. They are usually the most successful because the consequence of requests they receive are spread over a large, disunified group of people. Wheelan states that small problems begin to distort the simplest jobs of a market

The ‘invisible hand’ would have such an effect if every individual acts in order to maximise their own prosperity, the prosperity of the community will, in turn, be maximised and become more efficient. “This effect is very well exemplified in modern day terms by using a supermarket queuing system as an example. Each customer getting in line selfishly chooses to maximize his own interest, that is to check out in the shortest time, regardless of the other customers. Their utility maximizing choice is to get in queue in the shortest line; this means that eventually customers queue up in lines all of the same length. Therefore even without the slightest direction and by following only their selfishness, the lines are all of the same length, which is clearly the most efficient disposition.” This theory has been crucial in the development of economic thought in that it is a statement which reflected society in Smiths day, and is still so widely applicable in modern day society.

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.

A distribution of resources where there are no alternative allocations that keeps all individuals at least as well off but makes even one person better off. When there is an efficient allocation of resources, all members are equal. In Pareto some are better off.

This is an argument between the conceptuality and the practicality of Nash equilibrium in Economics. To understand it we need to first look into what economics is about, which is the study of social and human interaction and rational decision making quantitatively. Nash equilibrium can act as a tool to provide an insight into such interaction. In the first part of this essay, I am going to evaluate why the statement ‘economics without the concept of Nash equilibrium is conceptually flawed’ is true, by looking into the importance of rationality in economics and the mechanism of the Nash equilibrium. In the second part, I am going to assess why the argument for ‘Economics with the concept of Nash equilibrium is practically useless’ is true

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

According to Kant, moral questions are tied to the “maxims” of one’s own action. One must be able to convince others that his action is good and it is in the general interest of all. The “maxims” that are good to an individual must be will that it is in the general interest of all and therefore must be accepted as a “general law.” This “maxim” can be judged both from the ethical and moral point of view. However, Habermas’s view suggests that in order for a “maxim” to be called a norm, everyone must be potentially affected by it. Only then can it command in the equal interest of all and therefore must be considered as morally binding. The moral commands are expressed as an “ought.” In moral statement the question “what should I do” is transformed

imagine living in a world in which there are infinite amounts of goods and resources to satisfy every human desire. People will not find need to budget their limited incomes, businesses will not worry about the cost of labor, and governments will not have reason to tax its citizens, or give importance to environmental issues. People living in this society will be equal to one another and everything would be free, like water in the ocean and sand in the desert. All prices would be zero and society will not find need for markets or financial institutions. Unfortunately we do not live in a utopia of limitless possibilities; we live in a scarce world of unlimited wants. Given unlimited wants, we must make the best use of our limited resources, a science our ancestors have developed and named economics. This study measures how societies use scarce resources to produce valuable commodities and distribute them efficiently among different people.

1. Utilitarians believe that “one should so act as to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure) of the greatest number of people” (Angeles 326). However, within the utilitarian community there are major splits in how we are to determine which action brings us the greatest amounts of pleasure. Today I will be focusing on two ways to determine which actions bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a situation: act and rule utilitarianism. I will define both act and rule utilitarianism, give a situation where both can be applied, and respond to an objection of utilitarianism. I will also be discussing why I believe act utilitarianism helps more people than rule utilitarianism, in turn, becoming ‘superior’ to rule utilitarianism.

When government makes public policies, they have to consider between equality and efficiency. I have noticed that our government imposes price ceiling on some necessities such as eggs and bread. This may improve the equality, as everyone can buy eggs at the same price. However, it is inefficient because suppliers would produce less eggs since they cannot get a higher price. In this case, they have to ration limited resources to produce the right number of eggs. Nevertheless, I agree with Mankiw that recognizing that people face trade-offs does not by itself tell us what decisions they will or should make (p.5).

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a