Information for topics one, two (a & b) and three:
I'll just run through the
gist: then perhaps anyone unsure about additional items or with puzzles over
this can contact me direct for individual suggestions. (In general, closely
analysing material we've discussed in the sessions is likely to yield greater
gains than doing lots of extra reading). The extracts already
given out in the course back up the first question on utilitarianism.
Glover's book allows you to put them in context and extend them a bit (e.g. to
include what Williams goes on to say or how the survival lottery is argued
for....) See J.S.Mill's Utilitarianism, and
Glover's introductions to the relevant sections of his book, for some points of
defence......
The second question is broader so there's more you could read - but again don't risk letting reading swamp thinking. Source of the quotation: Sen's Development as Freedom, p.74. Relevant therefore to read at least this part of this book.... Sen's 'Equality of what?' is another obvious paper that relates; and you could refer also to his Inequality Reexamined. For possible criticisms, refer back to our talks last term, try Sugden from the reading list (early critic), consult the Robeyns paper......
On question three,
the focus is on what is meant by the two quoted authors (see extracts from the
4th session - quotes from F & F, p.181 and T, p.168) but read enough from
the two books concerned to put them in context [the earlier Capitalism and
Freedom by Friedman might also help]. The reading list gives some other
classic sources on freedom (Mill,
Information on remaining topics:
(Note: LRL is long reading list, or ‘bibliography’ section on this website)
Q.4. Suggested at the session more recent
pieces of literature which could be helpful, to add to the more classic entries
on LRL sec 8: they were:
Dasgupta, P., 'What do economists analyse: values or
facts?' [on shelf]. (= Revised draft 2004: there has
been a later version too, I think, but unless you are going to go deeply into
his point of view Jan 2004 should serve OK). Non-economists: don't be
intimidated by the more technical parts of this: pick out the parts that you
can follow easily and that relate most closely to the question - e.g. parts of
the intro {paper with relevance to capabilities issues too]
and
Putnam, H., The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy, 2002 (and/or 2003
paper, ''For ethics and economics without the dichotomies', Review of
Political Economy). [Referred to in Dasgupta, who
could give you the flavour of this before you decide whether to invest library
time in it]
Note the format of the question ('possible links', 'outline', 'use').
Quotation in the question: from Sen 1980, in the
extract I gave out.
On (i) try Popper? (LRL sec 8) - though there are
other possible sources for this too - including Sen.
On (ii), again many sources, including Sen, but - see
LRL - you could try Myrdal (1958) [you may just want
the key quotation which I distributed in a later session - same is true as I
remember of the key quotation from E.H.Carr's What
is History - fishing metaphor]
On (iii), try Dasgupta and - of course - Sen!
How does it all then add up? [Do you add it up as Sen
does?]
Q.5. Compact literature for this. Draw heavily on the
extracts given out [ref details are on LRL sec 3] (= Sen's
'Rational Fools'; Hahn v. Sen from my book; Sen's Econometrica 1997
paper, including the garden party chair analysis and the strategic nobility
fruit-passing game; Sen's summary account from Development
as Freedom) - but perhaps read round the extracts from Rat. Fools and the
'97 piece to get the context clear. The different selection bases which you can
catalogue may depend on the circumstances of choice (which is where your
'filling in of the background circs' comes in). leave
space for the last - puzzling - part.....
Q.6. Again a (very) compact literature - here relatively few pages but ones
that it can take a long time to digest and compare......
Anand quote from extract given out (which is from his
1993 book);
Broome quote from his chapter in my book (extract also circulated?) [Refs on
LRL sec 3 again]
Q.7. This is much broader so you will need to keep the
2000 word limit in mind from the outset. If you didn't take down this remark
during Kahneman's lecture, don't worry - see p. 774
in Kahneman and Tversky,
ed., Choices, Values and Frames, Ch 42 ('New challenges to the
rationality assumption'); and read his Nobel lecture, available on the web. [Also try browsing the intro in the earlier book edited by Kahneman and Tversky, Judgment
under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, originally appearing as a paper
of this title in Science for 1974]. Simon on 'bounded
rationality' could relate too. For the rest, left to you to draw together
material from our sessions that address this question - note that several handouts
relate..... [Relevant LRL secs = 2, 3, 10]
Q.8. My two papers on this (ch 8 in my Thoughtful
Economic Man, = longer version, and ch 2 in Runde,J. and Mizuhara,S.,
The Philosophy of Keynes's Economics: Probablility,
Uncertainty and Convention, = shorter version, slightly updated) cover much
of the material and provide further refs: saves time to start here. You should
also read some of Keynes himself (esp.extracts given
out) and work out how you would interpret him. This gives you the basis.
If you want more backup, there's an awkwardly large literature (beware the word
limit.....); see LRL sec 1. Shackle, Robinson, Moggridge
on LRL emphasise the irrational factors; O'Donnell, Lawson and many others (see
intro to Runde and Mizuhara
on my part) pursue the coexistence of rationality. But can Keynes indeed
have it both ways? - need your own assessment on this......[Runde's papers on LRL on the weight of arguments and
on comparisons with Bayesian methods are much recommended if your argument
takes you in those directions - not essential to read for this question wording
though. Coddington's paper on 'deficient foresight',
AER 1982 (see LRL) - not so recommended in itself and definitely not essential
- could be tried for its presentation of a very different viewpoint].
Q.9. Had a longer wording originally, spelling out what 'analyse' now covers
(try separating out the various elements in the claim - how many? - that might
be denied by those who disagree). Use Deane's papers, circulated, as the
jumping-of point; see also the quotations from Popper and Kuhn given in
extracts/on the handouts; read enough from these two to put those extracts in
context. Recent book on Kuhn by Thomas Nickles
updates discussion by philosophers of science - could be browsed (e.g. intro by
Nickles; ch 3 by Worrall on
Kuhn v. Popper and Lakatos), but this is an optional
extra. Note that Kuhn later revised his position somewhat (see Deane on this;
also try Lakatos and Musgrave, LRL sec 11).
Wide-ranging question, so don't attempt a full answer on each element (not
possible in 2000 words) - rather, concentrate on presenting all
the relevant elements and their role in the discussion of the claim, with brief
comment only - space for a few sensible remarks on each but clearly not for
extensive analysis of e.g. Popper or Kuhn (or......? Are other authors
relevant?)
Q 10. Quotation from Layard,
Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, out this spring (page ref, from
memory only - John has my book - is 224). Book ordered for the