The recent debate on what criteria ought to guide social decision-making has focused on consistency: it has been argued that criteria contradicting one another—namely, welfare and fairness—should not be simultaneously employed in order for policy assessment to be consistent. This Article raises the related problem of completeness—that is, the question of whether or not a set of consistent criteria is capable of providing answers to all social decision problems. If not, as it is suggested might be the case, then the only way to decide otherwise undecidable issues is to simultaneously employ both welfare and fairness, which implies a certain degree of inconsistency within the system.
Giuseppe D. Mattiacci,
Gödel, Kaplow, Shavell: Consistency and Completeness in Social Decision-Making,
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol79/iss2/9