• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

德沃金悖论。

Dworkin's paradox.

机构信息

Integrated Science Laboratory, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038529. Epub 2012 Jun 26.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0038529
PMID:22745666
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3383739/
Abstract

How to distribute welfare in a society is a key issue in the subject of distributional justice, which is deeply involved with notions of fairness. Following a thought experiment by Dworkin, this work considers a society of individuals with different preferences on the welfare distribution and an official to mediate the coordination among them. Based on a simple assumption that an individual's welfare is proportional to how her preference is fulfilled by the actual distribution, we show that an egalitarian preference is a strict Nash equilibrium and can be favorable even in certain inhomogeneous situations. These suggest how communication can encourage and secure a notion of fairness.

摘要

如何在社会中分配福利是分配正义学科的一个关键问题,它与公平观念密切相关。本文通过德沃金的一个思想实验,考虑了一个由具有不同福利分配偏好的个体和一个官员组成的社会,其中官员负责协调他们之间的关系。基于一个简单的假设,即个体的福利与其偏好被实际分配满足的程度成正比,我们表明,平等主义偏好是一个严格纳什均衡,即使在某些非同质情况下也可能是有利的。这些结果表明了沟通如何能够促进和确保公平观念。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/b6663d977cdc/pone.0038529.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/603573bf22f0/pone.0038529.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/295a77ad01d5/pone.0038529.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/b6663d977cdc/pone.0038529.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/603573bf22f0/pone.0038529.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/295a77ad01d5/pone.0038529.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f5dd/3383739/b6663d977cdc/pone.0038529.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Dworkin's paradox.德沃金悖论。
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038529. Epub 2012 Jun 26.
2
Dworkin's prudent insurance ideal: two revisions.德沃金的谨慎保险理想:两点修正。
J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr;38(4):243-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100071. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
3
Ronald Dworkin's "Prudent Insurance" ideal for healthcare: idealisations of circumstance, prudence and self-interest.罗纳德·德沃金关于医疗保健的“审慎保险”理想:对环境、审慎和自我利益的理想化。
Health Care Anal. 2008 Mar;16(1):31-8. doi: 10.1007/s10728-007-0052-x. Epub 2007 Jun 21.
4
Priority to the young or to those with least lifetime health?优先考虑年轻人还是那些一生健康状况最差的人?
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Apr;10(4):60-1. doi: 10.1080/15265161003697305.
5
Dueling ethical frameworks for allocating health resources.分配卫生资源的两种相互冲突的伦理框架。
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Apr;10(4):54-6. doi: 10.1080/15265161003632989.
6
On the possibility of "progress" in managing biomedical technologies: markets, lotteries, and rational moral standards in organ transplantation.论生物医学技术管理中“进步”的可能性:器官移植中的市场、抽签与合理道德标准
Cap Univ Law Rev. 2003;31(1):13-69.
7
The moral status of preferences for directed donation: who should decide who gets transplantable organs?定向捐赠偏好的道德地位:应由谁来决定谁能获得可移植器官?
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2001 Fall;10(4):387-98. doi: 10.1017/s096318010100408x.
8
The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities.个人特征在确定医疗保健优先事项中的道德相关性。
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Oct;57(7):1163-72. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00492-6.
9
Well-being and fairness in the distribution of scarce health resources.稀缺卫生资源分配中的福祉与公平。
J Med Philos. 2005 Jun;30(3):231-60. doi: 10.1080/03605310590960120.
10
[The distribution of health resources: a hybrid model of equality and maximization].[卫生资源的分配:平等与最大化的混合模式]
Can J Public Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;103(2):119-21. doi: 10.1007/BF03404214.

引用本文的文献

1
On the fair division of multiple stochastic pies to multiple agents within the Nash bargaining solution.在纳什谈判解内,将多个随机馅饼公平分配给多个代理。
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044535. Epub 2012 Sep 14.

本文引用的文献

1
Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games.N人博弈中的平衡点
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1950 Jan;36(1):48-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48.