Abstract
In discussing economic activities, asking what kind of value judgments exist rather than asking which personal value judgments, including object subject views, are “correct”, is part of scientific research. Fairness refers to a state (or agreed content) in which a certain rule is agreed upon and followed regardless of whether it is voluntary. To study social institutions and the direction of change in rules’ content, it is necessary to analyze the interests of the individuals involved. In the formation of actual rules, this becomes a need to focus on the interests of common interest groups. However, even when dealing with such questions related to “groups”, because any social group is the outcome of each self-interested individual pursuing that interest, there is no a priori, universal “utilitarian or collective” behavioral motive. (This question is considered further in Chap. 5).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Thus the essential economic question is related to such human understanding of distribution. J. S. Mill says, “The laws and conditions of the Production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths.” “It is not so with the Distribution of wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they like” (Mill 1848. ed. by Ashley, 1920, Book II, Chap. I, Sect. 1, 1st and 2nd paragraph).
- 2.
This behavior is called “self-sacrifice” here, but if we look at it from the total satisfaction resulting from them, it is not necessarily so.
- 3.
Robbins (1935).
- 4.
Ibid, Chaps. 1–2.
- 5.
Ibid, Chaps. 2–6.
- 6.
Usually, economists try not to touch upon people’s purpose in undertaking economic activities, but one point is exceptional in that they admit that their motive is to maximize their own utility. But this concept of “maximizing” seems to unconsciously allow a certain type of comparability of utility across individuals. It may remain of relative character, not absolute, such as just comparing two kinds of utilities to determine which is bigger, not comparing them by measuring their absolute sizes. But when comparing which is bigger, it seems one cannot escape having some measure of size. Anyway, the approach to be avoided is to not provide a judgment itself but to regard it as if it were already a desirable idea accepted by society. To provide a personal judgment as a hypothetical supposition may lead to fruitful results.
- 7.
Robbins, ibid, p. 50.
- 8.
Max Weber, Der Sinn der 》Wertfreiheit《 der soziologischen und Ökonomischen Wissenschaften, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenshcatslehere, (Chap. 1, Bewertungen der Lektion des Universität).
- 9.
Myrdal says “Questions must be asked before answers can be given. The questions are expression of our interest in the world, they are at the bottom valuations ” (1953, p. vii).
- 10.
Robinson (1962) Chap.1, p. 14.
- 11.
Myrdal says that freedom is essentially freedom of contract , but economic destitution may compel a person to make a contract that is in conflict with their freedom in a different sense (Myrdal, op. cit., p. 124).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsukada, H. (2018). HOW? Criteria for Determining Rules: Critical Development of Rawls’ Theory (2). In: The Market Economy as a Social System. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1837-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1837-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1836-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1837-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)