On the Cognitive Argument for Cost-Benefit Analysis

In a number of writings, Cass Sunstein has argued that we should use cost-benefit analysis as our primary approach to risk management, because cost-benefit analysis corrects for the cognitive biases that mar our thinking about risk. The paper critically evaluates this ‘cognitive argument for cost-be...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Christiansen, Andreas (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2018]
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2018, Volume: 21, Issue: 2, Pages: 217-230
RelBib Classification:NCA Ethics
VA Philosophy
Further subjects:B Cost-benefit analysis
B Ethics
B Cass Sunstein
B cognitive bias
B Risk
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1575793423
003 DE-627
005 20180529102135.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 180529s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10677-018-9883-9  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1575793423 
035 |a (DE-576)505793423 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ505793423 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Christiansen, Andreas  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a On the Cognitive Argument for Cost-Benefit Analysis  |c Andreas Christiansen 
264 1 |c [2018] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In a number of writings, Cass Sunstein has argued that we should use cost-benefit analysis as our primary approach to risk management, because cost-benefit analysis corrects for the cognitive biases that mar our thinking about risk. The paper critically evaluates this ‘cognitive argument for cost-benefit analysis' and finds it wanting. Once we make distinctions between different cognitive errors and between different aspects of cost-benefit analysis, it becomes apparent that there are really two cognitive arguments, neither of which is successful as arguments for cost-benefit analysis as a whole. One argument shows that the analysis aspect of cost-benefit analysis is warranted because it corrects for false beliefs about the magnitudes of risk and for the neglect of some costs. While this is a sound argument, it does not provide an argument for other aspects of cost-benefit analysis. The second argument purports to show that commensurating and monetizing the values of the effects of regulation is warranted because it corrects for the use of widely diverging values of a statistical life. This argument fails because the use of widely diverging values of a statistical life is not a cognitive error: It is neither precluded by considerations of instrumental rationality, nor by the requirement of treating like cases alike. 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a Cass Sunstein 
650 4 |a cognitive bias 
650 4 |a Cost-benefit analysis 
650 4 |a Ethics 
650 4 |a Risk 
652 |a NCA:VA 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 21(2018), 2, Seite 217-230  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320527093  |w (DE-600)2015306-5  |w (DE-576)104558555  |x 1572-8447  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:21  |g year:2018  |g number:2  |g pages:217-230 
856 4 0 |u https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-018-9883-9  |x Verlag  |3 Volltext 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9883-9  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3010588631 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1575793423 
LOK |0 005 20191105122302 
LOK |0 008 180529||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442053844  |a VA 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442052465  |a NCA 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL