Talk:Prioritarianism

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Effective Altruism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I don't think the Jim and Pam story from the first paragraph is a very good example. We should probably compare giving $10,000 to Pam vs. giving $10,000,000 to Jim. Dragice (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that Larry Temkin coined the term 'prioritarian'. I don't know when he's supposed to have used it first, but there should at least be a citation!129.67.120.187 (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless an authoritative prioritarianist source can be given for the example, it should be removed, as it is not good. First, in a two-person society, money would be a different tool than it usually is, hence we should not rely on the reader’s intuitions about its value; second, Pam’s getting any amount of money would not necessarily better his situation, as Jim may rise any prices involved in their transactions, and there is nobody else for Pam to make transactions with. The whole example is based on the wrong assumption that money has intrinsic value. Maybe replacing money with real goods would make the example good. Or making Jim a numismatist ;) . Finally, if someone has something to give to either Jim or Pam, then that society has a third member, no matter how distant. Palpalpalpal (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Jim and Pam example. Hopefully my explanation reflects the Wikipedia tone and content better without sacrificing content. User:Willowtaylor Willowtaylor (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like the philo counterpart to welfare economics.... No mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.20.218 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See above under Jim and Pam. 129.67.120.187 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC) The Temkin assertion indeed needs a reference. The first naming of "prioritarianism", however in the form "priority view", I know of is from Parfit: Parfit, Derek: Equality or Priority? The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, November 21, 1991. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 1995. 4°; 42 pp. So as publication date we have 1995, and presentation date 1991. Is the Temkin text older? Without the reference we cannot know that.Ch.Lumer (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)