Title: Benefit–Cost Considerations Should be Decisive when there is Nothing more Important at Stake
Abstract: Chapter 4 Benefit–Cost Considerations Should be Decisive when there is Nothing more Important at Stake Alan Randall, Search for more papers by this author Alan Randall, Search for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):Daniel W. Bromley, Search for more papers by this authorJouni Paavola, Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 2002 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470693674.ch4Citations: 5 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Summary This chapter contains section titled: Economists'; Justifications Ethical Objections to Welfarism Pluralism Benefits and Costs are Morally Considerable Bringing Benefits and Costs to Bear on Public Decisions An Application: Conservation Policy Implications for Doing Benefit—Cost Analysis References Citing Literature Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices RelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2002
Publication Date: 2002-01-01
Language: en
Type: other
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 30
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot