Chi riesce a rispondere a questa domandina? 10 punti,grazie.?

Perchè considerare il benessere in solo termini economici è fondamentalmente sbagliato?

Risposta seria,scritta decentemente e abbastanza lunga,grazie.

Mi serve per scuola. °-°"

10 punti.

4 risposte

Classificazione
  • 10 anni fa
    Risposta preferita

    Ciao ciao,

    il benessere economico, da solo, non è in grado di favorire la completa realizzazione dell'individuo.L'essere umano è un animale sociale che ha bisogno di instaurare relazioni con i propri simili, di provare emozioni e porsi delle sfide. Prima ancora, per fare tutto questo, ha bisogno di godere di un'ottima salute. Il benessere economico non è in grado di liberare l'uomo da sofferenze e malattie mortali, e non è in grado di comprare l'affetto e far vivere emozioni, può, semplicemente, consentire di soffrire con più comodità.

  • 10 anni fa

    Questo ti basta?

    In economics, game theory, and decision theory the expected utility hypothesis is a theory of utility in which "betting preferences" of people with regard to uncertain outcomes (gambles) are represented by a function of the payouts (whether in money or other goods), the probabilities of occurrence, risk aversion, and the different utility of the same payout to people with different assets or personal preferences. This theory has proved useful to explain some popular choices that seem to contradict the expected value criterion (which takes into account only the sizes of the payouts and the probabilities of occurrence), such as occur in the contexts of gambling and insurance. Daniel Bernoulli initiated this theory in 1738. Until the mid twentieth century, the standard term for the expected utility was the moral expectation, contrasted with "mathematical expectation" for the expected value.

    The von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem provides necessary and sufficient "rationality" axioms under which the expected utility hypothesis holds.In the presence of risky outcomes, a decision maker could use the expected value criterion as a rule of choice: higher expected value investments are simply the preferred ones. For example, suppose there is a gamble in which the probability of getting a $100 payment is 1 in 80 and the alternative, and far more likely, outcome, is getting nothing. Then the expected value of this gamble is $1.25. Given the choice between this gamble and a guaranteed payment of $1, by this simple expected value theory people would choose the $100-or-nothing gamble. However, under expected utility theory, some people would be risk averse enough to prefer the sure thing, even though it has a lower expected value, while other less risk averse people would still choose the riskier, higher-mean gamble.Nicolas Bernoulli described the St. Petersburg paradox (involving infinite expected values) in 1713, prompting two Swiss mathematicians to develop expected utility theory as a solution. The theory can also more accurately describe more realistic scenarios (where expected values are finite) than expected value alone.

    In 1728, Gabriel Cramer, in a letter to Nicolas Bernoulli, wrote, "the mathematicians estimate money in proportion to its quantity, and men of good sense in proportion to the usage that they may make of it."

    In 1738, Nicolas' cousin Daniel Bernoulli, published the canonical 18th Century description of this solution in Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis or Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk.

    Daniel Bernoulli proposed that a mathematical function should be used to correct the expected value depending on probability. This provides a way to account for risk aversion, where the risk premium is higher for low-probability events than the difference between the payout level of a particular outcome and its expected value.

    Bernoulli's paper was the first formalization of marginal utility, which has broad application in economics in addition to expected utility theory. He used this concept to formalize the idea that the same amount of additional money was less useful to an already-wealthy person than it would be to a poor person.The St. Petersburg paradox (named after the journal in which Bernoulli's paper was published) arises when there is no upper bound on the potential rewards from very low probability events. Because some probability distribution functions have an infinite expected value, an expected-wealth maximizing person would pay an infinite amount to take this gamble. In real life, people do not do this.

    Bernoulli proposed a solution to this paradox in his paper: the utility function used in real life means that the expected utility of the gamble is finite, even if its expected value is infinite. (Thus he hypothesized diminishing marginal utility of increasingly larger amounts of money.) It has also been resolved differently by other economists by proposing that very low probability events are neglected, by taking into account the finite resources of the participants, or by noting that one simply cannot buy that which is not sold (and that sellers would not produce a lottery whose expected loss to them were unacceptable).The von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms

    There are four axioms of the expected utility theory that define a rational decision maker. They are completeness, transitivity, independence and continuity.

  • 10 anni fa

    Supponi di essere il figlio di un ricco magnate e hai fiumi e fiumi di denaro ma non stai bene in salute e non hai nessuno con cui parlare, nessuno con cui condividere le tue emozioni, nessuno che ti capisca...vale la pena vivere una vita cosi.Per me no.

    Ovviamente il denaro,almeno il minimo indispensabile per poter vivere, è anch'esso fonte di benessere, ce lo dice anche Aristotele.L'ossessione continua di averne sempre di più porta inevitabilmente a una strada tortuosa, ricca di insidie che rischia di distruggere l'individuo. Quindi attenzione.

    Per giungere alla felicità, inoltre, occorre essere anche un pò "egoisti", con un egoismo inteso non come l ho intendiamo noi oggi,con connotazione negativa, ma con un "egoismo aristoteliano",inteso come una cura di se stessi certo non sfrenata e non ai danni degli altri, ma attenta e assidua.Dunque l'egoismo, che è considerato una delle più grandi fonti di infelicità poichè ci taglia fuori dal mondo, era presso aristotele uno dei modi per giungere alla felicità e al benessere.

  • Anonimo
    10 anni fa

    Beh su questo non ce molto da dire...Però ricordati una cosa...I soldi non fanno la felicità...Ci sono molte persone che ho conosciuto che sono davvero ricche che però pensano a se stessi...E pensandoci sono solo persone Tristi (Prendi spunto da ciò che ti ho detto e allungalo :D )

    Fonte/i: Me
Altre domande? Fai una domanda e ottieni le risposte che cerchi.