>Since I wrote "the book" on these questions, my position has been >evolving. Here is how I see it now. There are at least three general >"modern" value systems (modern in the sense that they do not rely on >local traditions for validation), personal utility/well-being, social >justice, and substantive well-being (e.g. the lists produced by Amartya >Sen and Martha Nussbaum). Each is capable of being defined rigorously >and, if not measured rigorously, at least measured up to the limit >imposed by known distortions. Any rounded view of what it is we want to >achieve in this world should give at least some weight to all three of >these, recognizing that there are often conflicts between them. > >I've written a few papers developing this perspective in the context of >occupational safety and health policy. Really, you could pick any other >aspect of the political economy and do pretty much the same thing. I >began by trying to critique the NCE obsession with utility uber alles, >but now I think that any monolithic approach is seriously flawed. > Peter Of course, true believers in any of the three approaches would say that any and all considerations worried about by the others are already properly incorporated into their system... Brad DeLong
