<신고전 경제학의 두 도그마>란 아티클에서 파레토 최적에 관한 부분입니다.
아마토 파레토 최적을 그 두 도그마들 중 하나로 보는듯 합니다. 이 아티클의
전반적 기조는 오늘날 미국의 대표적 철학자들중 하나인 퍼트남의 

The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays

가 어떻게  신고전경제학의 두 도그마에 대한 타당한 비판의 기본틀을 제시하고 
있는지 리뷰하는 것입니다. 퍼트남이나 리뷰어가 없는 사실을 지어내서 주장을
하는 게 아니라면 파레토 최적은 비행소년님이 생각하고 싶은 것 이상으로
아직도 주류경제학 내에서 한 역할을 하고 있는 것으로 보입니다. 

두 도그마들 중 나머지 하나는 the notion that rationality has nothing to do 
with values 입니다. 아마도 앞서 올린 이정전 선생의 아티클과 동일한 논지일
듯 합니다. 그러니 같이 읽으시면 좋겠죠.

(물론, 툭하면 사실영역의 교권과 가치영역의 교권 운운하는 이덕하님께도 강추..)

Shunning Sen’s notion of capabilities, while accepting the fact/value
dichotomy, economists have embraced the notion of Pareto Optimality.
Pareto Optimal outcomes are situations where making one person better
off requires that someone else be made worse off. When a situation is Pareto
Optimal it cannot unambiguously be improved upon, since one person’s gain
will be another person’s loss and, according to neoclassical economics, it is
impossible to compare personal or individual gains and losses. Economists
have hidden behind the notion of Pareto Optimality, afraid of making value
judgments that weigh one person’s gains against another person’s losses.
Because no clear improvement for everyone is possible in most cases, Pareto
Optimality is taken as the best we can do given our current situation.
However, this move to exclude values from economics, Putnam argues,
has rendered economics increasingly irrelevant. The act of defeating Nazi
Germany in World War II cannot be Pareto Optimal according to neoclassical
economics because some people are made worse off given their initial
endowments. Nonetheless, most of us will wish to contend that the world is
in fact a better place because of the defeat of Nazi Germany. A social science,
or an economics, that is unable to do this is useless in helping us understand
the real world and make sense of it. It is also an economics that defends
the status quo, because moving away from the status quo will usually require
that at least one person loses or does worse. Moreover, the notion of Pareto
Optimality itself is not really value free. As Putnam (2002, 56) points out,
Pareto Optimality implies an “underlying value judgment that every agent’s
right to maximize his or her utility is as important as every other’s.”