Self-Selective Social Choice Functions

It is not uncommon that a society facing a choice problem has also to choose the choice rule itself. In such situation voters’ preferences on alternatives induce preferences over the voting rules. Such a setting immediately gives rise to a natural question concerning consistency between these two levels of choice. If a choice rule employed to resolve the society’s original choice problem does not choose itself when it is also used in choosing the choice rule, then this phenomenon can be regarded as inconsistency of this choice rule as it rejects itself according to its own rationale. Koray (2000) proved that the only neutral, unanimous universally self-selective social choice functions are the dictatorial ones. Here we in troduce to our society a constitution, which rules out inefficient social choice rules. When inefficient social choice rules become unavailable for comparison, the property of self-selectivity becomes weaker and we show that some non-trivial self-selective social choice functions do exist. Under certain assumptions on the constitution we describe all of them.

Self-other asymmetry

In this paper, I present a non standard objection to moral impartialism. My idea is that moral impartialism is questionable when it is committed to a principle we have reasons to reject: the principle of self-other symmetry. According to the utilitarian version of the principle, the benefits and harms to the agent are exactly as relevant to the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms to any other agent. But this view sits badly with the “Harm principle” which stresses the difference between harm to others and harm to the self. According to the deontological version, we have moral duties to ourselves which are exactly symmetrical to our duties to others. But there are reasons to believe that the idea of a duty to the self is not coherent.

Decisive Coalitions and Coherence Properties

In a seminal contribution, Hansson has demonstrated that the family of decisive coalitions associated with an Arrovian social welfare function forms an ultrafilter. If the population under consideration is infinite, his result implies the existence of nondictatorial social welfare functions. He goes on to show that if transitivity is weakened to quasi-transitivity as the coherence property imposed on a social relation, the set of decisive coalitions is a filter. We examine the structure of decisive coalitions and analogous concepts with alternative coherence properties, namely, acyclicity and Suzumura consistency, and without assuming that the social relation is complete.

Development of a Chinese version WHO Self-Assessment Tool for Evaluating Health Promotion in Hospital

[Support Institutions:] Department of Administration of Health, University of Montreal, Canada Public Health School of Fudan University, Shanghai, China

A critique of Nancy Fraser's theory of social justice : self-determination and the Mohawks of Kahnawá:ke

La présente étude se concentre sur le travail de Nancy Fraser sur la justice sociale, lequel a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt dans la littérature au cours des dernières années. La reconnaissance et la redistribution sont les deux piliers originaux de son approche: les désavantages dont souffrent les gens dus au dénigrement culturel ou à la privation économique. Ces deux concepts servent à diagnostiquer et fournir le soutien moral aux multiples luttes que les victimes d’injustice entreprennent avec l’objectif d’établir une participation plus égalitaire à la société. Cependant, que peut-elle dire cette approche des groupes qui sont marginalisés et cherchent l’autogouvernance (ou la séparation même) plutôt que l’intégration dans la société? Le travail de Fraser manifeste une résistance envers les droits du groupe, et un silence quant à l’autodétermination. Mon intervention prend comme objectif d’inclure ces formes d’injustice dans son approche, la rendant plus sensible aux dynamiques des groupes et capable de répondre à leurs revendications trop souvent négligées sous prétexte de l’égalité. La question est, l’égalité de qui?