Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Value Incommensurability

  • Tomáš Sobek
  • Josef MontagEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_748

Definition

Incommensurability is a failure, or impossibility, to make value comparisons of different choices. It represents an important criticism of the proportionality test in judicial decision-making and of the cost-benefit analysis as a tool for assessing public policy. This entry summarizes the basic theories of value incommensurability.

Motivation and Delineation

Incommensurability is a failure, or impossibility, to make value comparisons. Its consequence is that choices among incommensurable options cannot be led by reason, i.e., cannot be rational. A few examples may help to illustrate such choices: upon arrival at Auschwitz, Sophie is forced to choose which one of her two children would be gassed and which would proceed to the labor camp; an individual needs to choose whether to pursue a career as farmer or as a violinist; one wonders, whether Mozart is a better composer than Michelangelo was sculptor; a city needs to find a trade-off between air quality and heating during...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson E (1990) The ethical limitations of the market. Econ Philos 6:179–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises (1988) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/486/888
  3. Chang R (2002) The possibility of parity. Ethics 112:659–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen G (2003) The price of everything, the value of nothing: reframing the commodification debate. Harv Law Rev 117:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frank RH (2008) Why is cost-benefit analysis so controversial? In: Hausman DM (ed) The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 251–269Google Scholar
  7. Khalil EL, Marciano A (2018) A theory of tasteful and distasteful transactions. Kyklos 91:110–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lucy W (2007) Philosophy of private law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Posner E (1998) The strategic basis of principled behavior: a critique of the incommensurability thesis. Univ Pa Law Rev 146:1185–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Posner E (2000) Law and social norms. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Radin M (1987) Market inalienability. Harv Law Rev 100:1849–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Radin M (1993) Compensation and commensurability. Duke Law J 43:57–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Raz J (1986) Morality of freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Raz J (1999) Engaging reason. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Regan D (1989) Authority and value: reflections on Raz’s morality of freedom. South Calif Law Rev 62:995–1095Google Scholar
  17. Sandel M (2012) What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Sandel M (2013) Market reasoning as moral reasoning: why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. J Econ Perspect 27:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stigler GJ, Becker GS (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum. Am Econ Rev 67:76–90Google Scholar
  20. Sunstein C (1994) Incommensurability and valuation in law. Mich Law Rev 92:789–861Google Scholar
  21. Titmuss R (1971) The gift relationship: from human blood to social policy. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Voyiakis E (2017) Private law and the value of choice. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Waldron J (1994) Fake incommensurability: a response to professor Schauer. Hastings Law J 45:813–824Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Adler M (1998) Law and incommensurability: introduction. Univ Pa Law Rev 146:1169–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alder J (2001) Incommensurable values and judicial review: the case of local government. Public Law 4:717–735Google Scholar
  3. Anderson E (1993) Value in ethics and economics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson E (2000) Why commercial surrogate motherhood unethically commodifies women and children: reply to McLachlan and Swales. Health Care Anal 8:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binmore K (2009) Interpersonal comparison of utility. In: Ross D, Kincaid H (eds) Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 540–559Google Scholar
  6. Brennan J, Jaworski PM (2015) Markets without symbolic limits. Ethics 125:1053–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang R (1997) Introduction. In: Chang R (ed) Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang R (2012) Are hard choices cases of incomparability? Philos Issues 22:106–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang R (2013) Incommensurability (and incomparability). In: LaFollette H (ed) International encyclopedia of ethics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp 2591–2604Google Scholar
  10. Cook PJ, Krawiec KD (2018) If we allow football players and boxers to be paid for entertaining the public, why don’t we allow kidney donors to be paid for saving lives? Law and Contemporary Problems 81:9–34Google Scholar
  11. Craswell R (1998) Incommensurability, welfare economics, and the law. Univ Pa Law Rev 146:1419–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis S (2008) The main argument for value incommensurability (and why it fails). South J Philos 46:27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein R (1995) Are values incommensurable, or is utility the ruler of the world? Utah Law Rev 3:683–715Google Scholar
  14. Ertman M, Williams JC (2005) Rethinking commodification: cases and readings in law and culture. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Eyal N, Tieffenbach E (2016) Incommensurability and trade. Monist 99:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman D (1982) What is ‘fair compensation’ for death or injury? Int Rev Law Econ 2:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin J (1977) Are there incommensurable values? Philos Public Aff 7:39–59Google Scholar
  18. Hsieh N (2016) Incommensurable values. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Online at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable. Last accessed on 30 May 2018
  19. Kelly C (2008) The impossibility of incommensurable values. Philos Stud 137:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larmore CE (1987) Patterns of moral complexity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lavetti K (forthcoming) The estimation of compensating wage differentials: lessons from the deadliest catch. J Bus Econ Stat.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2018.1470000
  22. Pildes RH, Anderson ES (1990) Slinging arrows at democracy: social choice theory, value pluralism, and democratic politics. Columbia Law Rev 90:2121–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Regan D (1989) Authority and value: reflections on Raz’s morality of freedom. South Calif Law Rev 62:995–1095Google Scholar
  24. Sunstein C (1996) Health-health tradeoffs. Univ Chic Law Rev 63:1533–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.International School of EconomicsKazakh-British Technical UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan
  3. 3.Faculty of LawCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic