Show/Hide Menu
Hide/Show Apps
Logout
Türkçe
Türkçe
Search
Search
Login
Login
OpenMETU
OpenMETU
About
About
Open Science Policy
Open Science Policy
Open Access Guideline
Open Access Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Communities & Collections
Communities & Collections
Help
Help
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Guides
Guides
Thesis submission
Thesis submission
MS without thesis term project submission
MS without thesis term project submission
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission
Publication submission
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
General Information
General Information
Copyright, Embargo and License
Copyright, Embargo and License
Contact us
Contact us
IMPARTIALITY AND OBJECTIVITY IN NORMATIVE ECONOMICS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES IN ADAM SMITH’S THEORY OF MORALS AND AMARTYA SEN’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
Download
10668554.pdf
Date
2024-9-13
Author
Demirel, Deniz Naz
Metadata
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
.
Item Usage Stats
135
views
55
downloads
Cite This
This thesis aims to examine the decision-making processes described by Amartya Sen’s theory of justice and Adam Smith’s theory of morals. It primarily appraises Sen’s dichotomy, i.e. his distinction between transcendental and comparative theories of justice, and the Smithian notion of impartial spectator to explore the roles of transcendental principles of justice and the voice of the public in ensuring that decisions within the scope of normative economics are objective. To this end, the way Sen incorporates the impartial spectator to his work The Idea of Justice and his claims that dismiss the role of transcendental theories in comparative assessments are inspected. These findings are compared and contrasted with Smith’s ideas on general rules of morality and the transcendental components of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. It is shown that both Smith and Sen attempt to establish strong ties between impartiality and objectivity and emphasise the crucial position of behavioural requirements of justice. Further, Smith’s and Sen’s views on the influence of one’s pursuit of self-interests on the impartiality and objectivity of judgements are revealed and scrutinised. The results of these discussions are used to pinpoint the relative weaknesses and strengths of the decision-making processes described by Smith and Sen.
Subject Keywords
objectivity
,
impartiality
,
Adam Smith
,
Amartya Sen
,
normative economics
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/111007
Collections
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Thesis
Citation Formats
IEEE
ACM
APA
CHICAGO
MLA
BibTeX
D. N. Demirel, “IMPARTIALITY AND OBJECTIVITY IN NORMATIVE ECONOMICS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES IN ADAM SMITH’S THEORY OF MORALS AND AMARTYA SEN’S THEORY OF JUSTICE,” M.S. - Master of Science, Middle East Technical University, 2024.