Normative ThinkingAndreu Ulied – ulied@mcrit.com ERSILIA foundationINTREPID – Winter School – February 2017

Do you love me?

Do you love me?

Really?

Economy & Business

Psycology

Law

PoliticalSciences

Natural & other

Sciences

Sociology

Moral Filosophy

KantBenthamDarwinMarxFreudParetoHeideggerArrowsKhunArendtPopperRawlsSenEllullFoucaultLacanKahnemanZizekBeckHabermas

Economy & Business

Psycology

Law

PoliticalSciences

Natural & other

Sciences

Sociology

Moral Filosophy

KantBenthamDarwinMarxFreudParetoHeideggerArrowsKhunArendtPopperRawlsSenEllullFoucaultLacanKahnemanZizekBeckHabermas

TechnologyEngineering

Open normative decision proceduresrequire the convergence (leaving someambiguity) in the hypothetical desiresof rational-enough agents.

They should be based on a method of intelligent deliberation, and a criterionof rightness.

How we take “Morally Right Collective Decisions”?

Open normative decision proceduresrequire the convergence (leaving someambiguity) in the hypothetical desiresof rational-enough agents.

They should be based on a method of intelligent deliberation, and a criterionof rightness.

How we take “Morally Right Collective Decisions”?

OPCIO A: Boulevard, OPCIO B: Rambla, OPCIO C: None of the others

Do you prefer A or B?

Are you happy?

Are you happy?

Really?

...communication is impossible

Aa? b? B!

...symbolic means to reduce ambiguity

Aa a

Aa a

Open normative decision proceduresrequire the convergence (leaving someambiguity) in the hypothetical desiresof rational-enough agents.

They should be based on a method of intelligent deliberation, and a criterionof rightness.

How we take “Morally Right Collective Decisions”?

Prioritarist welfarism

Kant’sDeontologism:

Categorical imperatives“Rights” & “Duties”

Welfarism

Utilitiarism byBentham& Mill

Personal utilities

“Criterion of rightness”: it is about means? or ends?

“Criterion of rightness”: moral legal decision procedures

Multicriteria framework (matrix criteria/weigths)

• Social Welfare Function-proxy –welfarist• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) –consequentialist

• Financial Sustainability – deontològic imperative• Cost-effectiveness –deontologic imperative

FLAGSHIP EU Research project (ISINNOVA-MCRIT/Multicriteria, 2015)

SWF-proxy –welfarist: W = A * C * E

• A (Afluence – according to GDP/capita growth)• C (Cohesion – according to Gini income distribution)• E (Environmental externalities – CO2/Climate Change)

∆W= ∆(A*C*E)= ∆A*C*E + A*∆C*E + A* C* ∆E

Conviviality Public health

Relevance Very high Very high

Definition Opportunities for free social interactionamong anonimous persons

Rights: Urban standards on public space for pedestrians –sidewalks, squares, parks... on land-use plan can be rised?

Gual: Reduce space for traffic increasingup to 750 ha with people priority andreduction up to 1/3 motorised trips to keeptraffic congention in corrent levels

Improvement of air quality. Pollution and Climate Change.

Rights: Urban standards by EC Directives, and OMS.

Goal: Comply with EC regulations

A non-welfarist approach is possible?

First interest:

Conviviality

Second interest:

Public health

Third interest:

Sustainable growth

Relevance Paramount Very High High

Definitionandassociatedrights

Opportunities for freesocial interactionamong anonimouspersons

Rights: Urban standardson public space for pedestrians –sidewalks, squares, parks...

Improvement of airquality. Pollution andClimate Change.

Rights: Urban standardsby EC Directives, andOMS.

Direct, indirect andinduced sustainableeconomic impactreducing incomedisparities

Rights: Services of General Interest for all

Moral criteria to evaluate“feasible” urban policies?

Foundational principles

● Explicit valuation - .

● Broadly Consequential Evaluation -

● Additive Accounting

Structural demands

● Assumed Completeness -

● Full Knowledge of Probabilistic Understanding -

● Non iterative and non-parametric Valuations -

New Foundations for Cost-Benefit based on Social Choice Theory

Market Centered Valuation

●Reliance on Willingness to Pay -

● Sufficiency of Potential Compensation -

● Disregard of Social Choice Options -

Evaluative Indifferences

● Non valuation of Actions,

● Indifference to Intrinsic Value of Freedom -

● Instrumental View of Behavioral Values -

New Foundations for Cost-Benefit based on Social Choice Theory

AIR StrategiesMarket opening to global competition

Completition of the internal market

Antitrust regulation

Full internalisationof externalities

Travellers +++ +++ +++ -Non-traveller Citizens + + + +++Labour Associations - - - - - - -Service Operators: Flag carriers - - - - - - - -Service Operators: LCC ++ +++ ++ - - -Service Operators: Charter + +++ + - - -Service Operators: Cargo - ++ + - - -ANSPs (air traffic management) - - - - - -Airport Managers +++ ++ + -Airport Owners +++ ++ + -Aeronautical Industry + + - - - +“Hub regions” - - - + +“2nd Tier Regions” +++ +++ ++ +++Member States - + + +European Institutions + +++ ++ ++UN and International Organisations +++ + + ++