Comparing Kant's Argument Of Pareto Efficiency

Kant's Categorical Argument Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the late 18th century and was arguably one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to the ontological theory. Many people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life. The topic I shall be discussing is Kant's categorical imperative and the utilitarian's greatest happiness idea. There are significant problems with both ideas. It is apparent however, that alternatives to these two conflicting schools of thought have been offered. One popular criticism of utilitarianism is that it deals too much with the consequences of one's actions, and the same for Kant except When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our action is often beyond our control and the morality of our actions cannot depend on their outcome. What we can control however is the will behind these actions. That is we can will to act according to one law rather than another. The morality of an action therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it and not the consequences associated with it. According to Kant the only thing that is good without reason is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

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

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.

growing inequality, and finally address the broader implication of socioeconomic inequality and ultimately why these Others argue that inequality is acceptable and, indeed, beneficial. Martin Feldstein argues that, according to the Pareto principle, the gain of some over others is not injurious as

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

To take an ethical approach to living I believe we must follow a duty-based and Common Good approach. The duty-based approach is associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that doing what is right is not about the consequences of our actions but about having the proper intention in performing the action. The categorical imperative is Kant famous formula for discovering our ethical duty. The categorical imperative states that we must act as if what we do is universal law for everyone else. The common good approach is associated with the philosopher Plato. Plato states that in our actions we should always do what is best for the most number of people.

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

If I consider myself in this case than it is clear that my classmate (who is major drug dealer) is attempting to exploit me. There are many reasons which could be presented to prove this exploitation. In general meaning we know that to exploit others is mean to exploit them.

Marriage equality is a battle for fairness and equality that spans many decades. The argument against same-sex marriage derives from religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. One of the most well know philosophers in history, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), developed a moral theory called The Universalizability Principle that states, “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”. By this theory, also known as a Categorical Imperative, Kant explains that commands, like the one above, must be followed, regardless of your desires; moral obligations are derived from pure reason. It doesn’t matter whether one wants to be moral or not, the moral law is binding

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).

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.

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.

In his study, Macleod investigated the effect of social preferences on economic performance. As recent researchers suggest, for well functioning economy, there is lot of things to learn from psychology. In this respect, Macleod considers fairness and trust to be the most important factors for alleviating distortionary effects of

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.