Reviews for Axiology, the science of values; Ethics, the science of oughtness

The average rating for Axiology, the science of values; Ethics, the science of oughtness based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-04-07 00:00:00 Patrick Silverthorne Public choice theory is just full of interesting and counterintuitive results. It's most famous result, Arrow's impossibility theorem, says that democratic decision making over a fixed set of choices cannot be guaranteed to produce rational results--majorities might just prefer A to B, B to C, and also C to A. Furthermore, the only way to guarantee rational results is a dictatorship. These are truly strange results, which turn out to hold the keys to a deep understanding of democracy's mechanisms. Riker's book explains clearly some of the most important results of social choice theory. Then, he patiently leads the reader to understand how these seemingly esoteric theories explain an incredible amount of the chaos of modern democratic politics. Riker's discussion of importance of agenda setting is particularly illuminating. (Maybe his analysis is well known to political scientists, but I didn't know about it, and I found it really insightful). If the majority prefers A to B, and you strongly prefer B, what can you do in a democratic society? Riker shows that often, the answer is to change the subject--introduce a third option C which less popular than B, but more popular than A. By reframing the A vs. B choice in the context of C, you create a voting cycle where there was just a clear preference for A before. The result is democratic paralysis in which your least favorite choice, A, does not get implemented. I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in better understanding democracy. The presentation can get a bit technical at times, but Riker rewards the readers' patience richly.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-12-23 00:00:00 Deborah Duphily A hugely overrated book. Sets up a straw man argument and burns it to the ground, while simultaneously seeking to undermine the basis of a democratic society. Bonus points for projecting totalitarian intent on those that believe voting has some meaning, while claiming that rejection of democracy is the way to protect against autocracy. Great way to justify the actions of anyone in power.