Symbolic preferences and decision -making: Application to utility theory, interpersonal comparisons and welfare theory

A minor shift in our understanding of preferences can have far-reaching effects on utility theory, interpersonal comparisons and welfare theory. Since standard preferences only serve as means to utility, they prohibit utility theory from meaningfully describing individual and social behavior. By slightly modifying standard preferences to allow them to serve as means to utility and also as means to other preferences, utility theory is able to meaningfully describe individual and social behavior. These modified preferences are called symbolic preferences and can be incorporated into a utility function, called a thick utility function. The thick utility function overcomes the criticisms of the standard utility function suggested by Becker, Harsanyi and Sen. Becker's extended utility function, Sen's meta utility function and Harsanyi's informed utility function are all special cases of the thick utility function.;Interpersonal utility comparisons and interpersonal preference comparisons are both approaches to making interpersonal welfare comparisons. The thick utility function and symbolic preferences can be used to illustrate the logical impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons. They can also be used to demonstrate that interpersonal preference comparisons are logically and operationally possible. Interpersonal preference comparisons provide a framework for reconciling the seemingly opposing views of those who dispute the possibility of interpersonal welfare comparisons, such as Robbins and Arrow, and those who promote the possibility, such as Sen and Harsanyi.;The thick utility function, symbolic preferences and interpersonal preference comparisons further suggest that an anthropologically acceptable notion of culture can be introduced into economics. Culture and the thick utility function can then be incorporated into a type of social welfare function, called a cultural welfare function, which is consistent with the spirit of the Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function. The cultural welfare function is not vulnerable to Arrow's General Possibility Theorem criticism concerning the logical integrity of the Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function. In addition, the cultural welfare function is not vulnerable to Little's criticism concerning the operational potential of the Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function.