Are Numbers Really as Bad as They Seem? A Political-Philosophy Perspective

In Anna Alexandrova, Stephen John & Chris Newfield, Limits of the Numerical: The Abuses and Uses of Quantification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This chapter aims to make analytical political philosophy part of existing discussions about the role of numbers in the workings of political institutions that already cut across many other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. To do that, it will first explore the prominent ‘capability approach’ to justice, which is characterised by scepticism towards excessive precision in law- and policy-making. Given the close link between precision and quantification, the loudest voice from political philosophy will therefore turn out to be one of warning against the use of numbers in political decision-making. However, the chapter will also discuss powerful objections to the capability approach that, building on the work of John Rawls, stress the importance of public justification and, in turn, simplifying devices in political decision-making. Those objections will be used to demonstrate that quantification can play functions that are very important from a normative perspective. To further support its claim that under certain circumstances, numerical tools might well be the best way of making political decisions, the chapter will use as a case study the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, an administrative body in charge of appraising health technology for use in the British National Health Service.

Author's Profile

Gabriele Badano
University of York

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-03-18

Downloads
26 (#105,492)

6 months
26 (#103,411)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?