|
|
|
|
Three Arguments for Lotteries |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP!
You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
Philosophers and social scientists have offered a variety of arguments for making certain types of decisions by lot. This paper examines three such arguments. These arguments identify indeterminacy, fairness, and incentive effects as the major reasons for using lotteries to make decisions. These arguments are central to Jon Elsters study of lottery use, Solomonic Judgments (1989), and so the paper focuses upon their treatment in this work. Upon closer examination, all three arguments have the same basic structure, in that they appeal to a single effect lotteries can havea sanitizing effect. Lotteries have this effect because they make possible decision-making that makes no use of reasons, whether good or bad. All arguments for or against decision-making by lot must ultimately appeal to this effect. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
lotteri (139), reason (124), decis (92), elster (73), make (70), argument (66), one (62), good (49), indeterminaci (47), select (46), use (46), case (45), decision-mak (42), effect (42), alloc (39), random (37), bad (36), p (35), option (35), may (32), fair (31), |
|
|
 | Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: APSA 2008 Annual Meeting
URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Stone, Peter. "Three Arguments for Lotteries" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2008 <Not Available>. 2010-01-23 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p278170_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Stone, P. C. , 2008-08-28 "Three Arguments for Lotteries" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2010-01-23 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p278170_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Philosophers and social scientists have offered a variety of arguments for making certain types of decisions by lot. This paper examines three such arguments. These arguments identify indeterminacy, fairness, and incentive effects as the major reasons for using lotteries to make decisions. These arguments are central to Jon Elsters study of lottery use, Solomonic Judgments (1989), and so the paper focuses upon their treatment in this work. Upon closer examination, all three arguments have the same basic structure, in that they appeal to a single effect lotteries can havea sanitizing effect. Lotteries have this effect because they make possible decision-making that makes no use of reasons, whether good or bad. All arguments for or against decision-making by lot must ultimately appeal to this effect. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
application/pdf |
| Page count: |
24 |
| Word count: |
7971 |
| Text sample: |
| Three Arguments for Lotteries Peter Stone Political Science Department Stanford University Stanford CA 94305-6044 (650) 725-2916 peter.stone@stanford.edu Abstract: Philosophers and social scientists have offered a variety of arguments for making certain types of decisions by lot. This paper examines three such arguments. These arguments identify indeterminacy fairness and incentive effects as the major reasons for using lotteries to make decisions. These arguments are central to Jon Elster’s study of lottery use Solomonic Judgments (1989) and so the paper focuses |
| Andrew. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press 2005. Rescher Nicholas. “The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy.” Ethics 79 no. 3 (April 1969): 173-186. Sher George. “What Makes a Lottery Fair?” Noûs 14 (1980): 203-216. Stone Peter. “Arbitrary Selection and Random Selection.” Unpublished Manuscript. Stanford University 2008a. Stone Peter. “Picking and Choosing Revisited.” Unpublished Manuscript. Stanford University 2008b. Thaler Richard H. “Illusions and Mirages in Public Policy.” Public Interest |
Similar Titles:
Effects of harassment severity and reporting behavior on juror decision making in sexual harassment cases
Does Order Really Make a Difference? The Impact of Respondent and Question Characteristics on Response Option Order Effects
Mr. Kennedy, Tear Down This Wall: Justice Anthony Kennedy and The Effect of Regime Politics on Judicial Decision Making in Religious Establishment Cases
Evaluating the Effects of Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial--Decisions across Two Different States: How Does Law Advance Case Processing Options in Juvenile Court?
|
|
