Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 12
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Michael, John Sebanz, Natalie and Knoblich, Günther 2016. The Sense of Commitment: A Minimal Approach. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6,

    Knight, Daniel Martyn 2015. Opportunism and Diversification: Entrepreneurship and Livelihood Strategies in Uncertain Times. Ethnos, Vol. 80, Issue. 1, p. 117.

    Tamate, Shintaro 2015. External Norms and Systematically Observed Norms. Japanese Economic Review, Vol. 66, Issue. 2, p. 247.

    Burns, C. Sean 2014. Advances in Library Administration and Organization.

    Calabresi, G. 2014. Of Tastes and Values. American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 313.

    Cudd, Ann E. 2014. COMMITMENT AS MOTIVATION: AMARTYA SEN’S THEORY OF AGENCY AND THE EXPLANATION OF BEHAVIOUR. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 30, Issue. 01, p. 35.

    MEI, TODD S. 2014. Are Reasons Enough? Sen and Ricoeur on the Idea of Impartiality. Dialogue, Vol. 53, Issue. 02, p. 243.

    Lehtinen, Aki 2013. Preferences as total subjective comparative evaluations. Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 206.

    Grüne-Yanoff, Till 2009. Mismeasuring the value of statistical life. Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 109.

    Hausman, Daniel M. and McPherson, Michael S. 2009. PREFERENCE SATISFACTION AND WELFARE ECONOMICS. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 25, Issue. 01, p. 1.

    Ellis, Stephen 2008. The Varieties of Instrumental Rationality. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. 199.

    Pauer‐Studer, Herlinde 2006. Identity, commitment and morality. Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 13, Issue. 3, p. 349.



  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 April 2005

While very much in Sen's camp in rejecting revealed preference theory and emphasizing the complexity, incompleteness, and context dependence of preference and the intellectual costs of supposing that all the factors influencing choice can be captured by a single notion of preference, this essay contests his view that economists should recognize multiple notions of preference. It argues that Sen's concerns are better served by embracing a single conception of preference and insisting on the need for analysis of the multiple factors that determine ‘preference’ so conceived.

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? *