IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v11y2012i3p258-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics

Author

Listed:
  • Rosemary Lowry
  • Martin Peterson

Abstract

Cost-benefit analysis is commonly understood to be intimately connected with utilitarianism and incompatible with other moral theories, particularly those that focus on deontological concepts such as rights. We reject this claim and argue that cost-benefit analysis can take moral rights as well as other non-utilitarian moral considerations into account in a systematic manner. We discuss three ways of doing this, and claim that two of them (output filters and input filters) can account for a wide range of rights-based moral theories, including the absolute notions of moral rights proposed by Hayek, Mayo, Nozick, and Shue. We also discuss whether the use of output filters and input filters can be generalized to cover other non-utilitarian theories, such as Kantian duty ethics and virtue ethics.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson, 2012. "Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(3), pages 258-279, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:11:y:2012:i:3:p:258-279
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X11416767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X11416767
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X11416767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    2. Nussbaum, Martha C, 2000. "The Costs of Tragedy: Some Moral Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1005-1036, June.
    3. Zamir, Eyal & Medina, Barak, 2010. "Law, Economics, and Morality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195372168.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margaret Oppenheimer & Helen LaVan & William Martin, 2015. "A Framework for Understanding Ethical and Efficiency Issues in Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Litigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 505-524, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aurelien Portuese & Orla Gough & Joseph Tanega, 2017. "The principle of legal certainty as a principle of economic efficiency," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 131-156, August.
    2. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    3. Ross A. Tippit, 2014. "Modeling exogenous moral norms," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 8(1), November.
    4. Ewa Roszkowska & Tom R. Burns, 2010. "Fuzzy Bargaining Games: Conditions of Agreement, Satisfaction, and Equilibrium," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 421-440, September.
    5. Zerbe, Richard, 2023. "A foundation for benefit-cost analysis," MPRA Paper 121294, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2024.
    6. Thomas Thaler, 2021. "Just retreat—how different countries deal with it: examples from Austria and England," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 412-419, September.
    7. Kinouchi, Renato, 2018. "Philosophical issues related to risks and values," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Sven Hansson, 2007. "Social decisions about risk and risk-taking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(4), pages 649-663, December.
    9. Pasi Heikkurinen & Jukka Mäkinen, 2018. "Synthesising Corporate Responsibility on Organisational and Societal Levels of Analysis: An Integrative Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 589-607, May.
    10. Helen LaVan & Lori S. Cook & Ivana Zilic, 2021. "An analysis of the ethical frameworks and financial outcomes of corporate social responsibility and business press reporting of US pharmaceutical companies," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(3), pages 326-355.
    11. Joshua Chen-Yuan Teng & Joseph Tao-yi Wang & C. C. Yang, 2020. "Justice, what money can buy: a lab experiment on primary social goods and the Rawlsian difference principle," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 45-69, March.
    12. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    13. Andrea Klonschinski, 2021. "Universal Metrics for Climate Change Adaptation Finance? A Cautionary Tale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    14. repec:sae:envval:v:25:y:2016:i:2:p:215-234 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Rafał Buła & Monika Foltyn-Zarychta, 2022. "Declining Discount Rates for Energy Policy Investments in CEE EU Member Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Dimitriou, Harry T. & Ward, E. John & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 7-20.
    17. Swann Bommier & Cécile Renouard, 2014. "On Equity in India's Water Supply Public-Private Partnerships," Working Papers hal-01023795, HAL.
    18. M. Bigoni & S. Bortolotti & F. Parisi & A. Porat, 2016. "Unbundling Efficient Breach: An Experiment," Working Papers wp1088, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    19. Ferreiro, Maria de Fátima & Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda & Costa, Ana, 2013. "Conflicting values and public decision: The Foz Côa case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 129-135.
    20. David Colander & KimMarie McGoldrick, 2009. "The Economics Major as Part of a Liberal Education: The Teagle Report," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 611-618, May.
    21. repec:hal:journl:hal-01023795 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Stephen John, 2015. "Efficiency, responsibility and disability," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:11:y:2012:i:3:p:258-279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.