Sen’s liberal paradox
E494085
Sen’s liberal paradox is a result in social choice theory showing that even minimal individual rights can be incompatible with always achieving Pareto-efficient collective decisions.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Sen’s liberal paradox canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5114209 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sen’s liberal paradox Context triple: [Arrow’s impossibility theorem, relatedTo, Sen’s liberal paradox]
-
A.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
B.
Arrow paradox
The Arrow paradox is an ancient philosophical argument that challenges the coherence of motion by claiming that a flying arrow must be motionless at every instant of its flight.
-
C.
Collective Choice and Social Welfare
Collective Choice and Social Welfare is a foundational work in social choice theory that rigorously examines how individual preferences can be aggregated into collective decisions while addressing issues of welfare, justice, and fairness.
-
D.
Condorcet paradox
The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
-
E.
Paradoxes of plurality
Paradoxes of plurality are a set of arguments by Zeno of Elea that challenge the coherence of the concepts of plurality and divisibility in space and time.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sen’s liberal paradox Target entity description: Sen’s liberal paradox is a result in social choice theory showing that even minimal individual rights can be incompatible with always achieving Pareto-efficient collective decisions.
-
A.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
B.
Arrow paradox
The Arrow paradox is an ancient philosophical argument that challenges the coherence of motion by claiming that a flying arrow must be motionless at every instant of its flight.
-
C.
Collective Choice and Social Welfare
Collective Choice and Social Welfare is a foundational work in social choice theory that rigorously examines how individual preferences can be aggregated into collective decisions while addressing issues of welfare, justice, and fairness.
-
D.
Condorcet paradox
The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
-
E.
Paradoxes of plurality
Paradoxes of plurality are a set of arguments by Zeno of Elea that challenge the coherence of the concepts of plurality and divisibility in space and time.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
impossibility result
ⓘ
paradox in welfare economics ⓘ result in social choice theory ⓘ |
| assumption |
Pareto principle is applied to social states
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
at least three social states are available ⓘ at least two individuals exist in the society ⓘ individual rights are modeled as decisive power over certain personal choices ⓘ individuals have preferences over social states ⓘ preferences are complete and transitive ⓘ social choice rule aggregates individual preferences into a social ordering ⓘ social preference relation is complete and transitive ⓘ |
| author | Amartya Sen NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| category |
economic paradox
ⓘ
impossibility theorem in social choice ⓘ philosophical paradox ⓘ |
| contrastsWith | utilitarian approaches that ignore individual rights as constraints ⓘ |
| coreClaim |
even minimal individual rights can conflict with Pareto efficiency
ⓘ
no social decision rule can simultaneously satisfy minimal liberalism and unrestricted Pareto efficiency under its assumptions ⓘ |
| field |
political philosophy
ⓘ
social choice theory ⓘ welfare economics ⓘ |
| formalizes |
conflict between personal liberty and social welfare maximization
ⓘ
tension between individual rights and collective rationality ⓘ |
| hasImplication |
complete respect for individual liberties may be incompatible with standard welfare criteria
ⓘ
design of constitutions and decision procedures must trade off rights and efficiency ⓘ |
| illustratedBy | examples where individuals have decisive control over personal choices that affect others ⓘ |
| incompatibilityBetween |
Pareto efficiency
ⓘ
minimal liberalism ⓘ |
| influenced |
debates on liberalism and paternalism
ⓘ
subsequent work on social choice with rights ⓘ theory of rights in economics ⓘ |
| motivated |
research on alternative formulations of rights and liberties
ⓘ
research on domain restrictions to avoid the paradox ⓘ |
| namedAfter | Amartya Sen NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| publishedIn | The Review of Economic Studies NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Pareto efficiency NERFINISHED ⓘ collective choice ⓘ minimal liberalism ⓘ rights-based liberalism ⓘ social welfare function ⓘ |
| showsThat |
granting individuals decisive control over some choices can force socially Pareto-inferior outcomes
ⓘ
no social decision rule can fully respect both minimal liberty and Pareto efficiency under its framework ⓘ respecting minimal individual rights may require violating Pareto principle ⓘ |
| typicalExampleFeatures |
Pareto-superior outcome that violates someone’s right
ⓘ
at least one private decision for which each individual has decisive authority ⓘ two individuals with preferences over each other’s actions ⓘ |
| yearProposed | 1970 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Sen’s liberal paradox Description of subject: Sen’s liberal paradox is a result in social choice theory showing that even minimal individual rights can be incompatible with always achieving Pareto-efficient collective decisions.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.