Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis

  • Donald C. Hubin (a1)

Benefit/cost analysis is a technique for evaluating programs, procedures, and actions; it is not a moral theory. There is significant controversy over the moral justification of benefit/cost analysis. When a procedure for evaluating social policy is challenged on moral grounds, defenders frequently seek a justification by construing the procedure as the practical embodiment of a correct moral theory. This has the apparent advantage of avoiding difficult empirical questions concerning such matters as the consequences of using the procedure. So, for example, defenders of benefit/cost analysis (BCA) are frequently tempted to argue that this procedure just is the calculation of moral Tightness – perhaps that what it means for an action to be morally right is just for it to have the best benefit-to-cost ratio given the accounts of “benefit” and “cost” that BCA employs. They suggest, in defense of BCA, that they have found the moral calculus – Bentham's “unabashed arithmetic of morals.” To defend BCA in this manner is to commit oneself to one member of a family of moral theories (let us call them benefit/cost moral theories or B/C moral theories) and, also, to the view that if a procedure is (so to speak) the direct implementation of a correct moral theory, then it is a justified procedure. Neither of these commitments is desirable, and so the temptation to justify BCA by direct appeal to a B/C moral theory should be resisted; it constitutes an unwarranted short cut to moral foundations – in this case, an unsound foundation. Critics of BCA are quick to point out the flaws of B/C moral theories, and to conclude that these undermine the justification of BCA. But the failure to justify BCA by a direct appeal to B/C moral theory does not show that the technique is unjustified. There is hope for BCA, even if it does not lie with B/C moral theory.

Hide All
Bentham Jeremy. 1948. Principles of Morals and Legislation. Darien, Connecticut: Hafner Publishing Co.
Byrne John. 1983. “What's Wrong with Being Reasonable? The Politics of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” In Ethical Theory and Business, edited by Beauchamp Tom L. and Bowie Norman, pp. 568–76. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Copp David. 1987. “The Justice and Rationale of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Theory and Decision 23:6587.
Elster Jon. 1983. Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gauthier David. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gibbard Allan. 1986. “Risk and Value.” In Values at Risk, edited by MacLean Douglas, pp. 94112. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Hare R. M. 1969. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harsanyi John C. 1977. “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” Social Research 44:625–56.
Hobbes Thomas. [1651] 1969. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd.
Hubin Donald C. 1986. “Of Bindings and By-Products: Elster on Rationality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 15:8295.
Hubin Donald C., and Perkins Michael. 1986. “Self-Subverting Principles of Choice.” The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16:110.
Leonard Herman, and Zeckhauser Richard. 1986. “Cost-Benefit Analysis Applied to Risks: Its Philosophy and Legitimacy.” In Values at Risk, edited by MacLean Douglas, pp. 3148. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Locke John. 1960. Two Treatises of Government. New York: Mentor Books.
MacIntyre Alasdair. 1979. “Utilitarianism and Benefit/Cost Analysis: An Essay on the Relevance of Moral Theory to Bureaucratic Theory.” In Ethical Theory and Business, edited by Beauchamp Tom L. and Bowie Norman E., pp. 266–76. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mill John Stuart. 1968. Selected Writings of John Stuart Mill, edited by Cowling Maurice. New York: Mentor Books.
Nozick Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Parfit Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rawls John. 1955. “Two Concepts of Rules.” Philosophical Review 64:332.
Rawls John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Sagoff Mark. 1988. The Economy of the Earth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartzman Daniel. 1982. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Regulation: Sources of the Controversy.” In Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics, Ethics and Methods, edited by Schwartzman Daniel, Liroff Richard, and Croke Kevin, pp. 5386. Washington DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Sen A. K. 1970. “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.” Journal of Political Economy 78:152–57.
Smart J. J. C. 1978. “Distributive Justice and Utility.” In Justice and Economic Distribution, edited by Arthur John and Shaw William, pp. 103–31. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weinrib Ernest J. 1980. “Utilitarianism, Economics and Legal Theory.” University of Toronto Law Journal 30:307–36.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 173 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.