Deriving the principle of principle The principle of principle classifies states based on the utility of the most disadvantaged actor. The national security function is therefore. The ranking remains unchanged when applying the same monotonic increasing transformation to the utility of each actor. That is, it is invariant under a transformation for which every time . This means that the maximin principle requires level comparability, because the monotonicity of implies that if and only if. To derive the maximin principle, an additional property is needed: separability, which states that actors for whom all states appear equal play no role in the balance of power. More precisely, be a subset of actors such that, for each tuple of utility functions, it is the same for each state. Then assign the same ranking if for all the actors not present, for all the states. The claim is that, given the comparability of the levels and the above axioms, the national security function must be the maximum function. Curiously, however, these premises imply only that the welfare function is maximin or maximax (21). The latter maximizes the utility of the actor who is better off; this is, . To deduce a minimax principle, one must exclude the maximax principle for some other reason. Again the idea of ​​argumentation can be conveyed in the case of two actors (22), where separability does not play a role. Let the one shown in Figure 2 be an arbitrary utility vector and let . Divide the plane into regions around the diagonal line as shown. Then it is sufficient to demonstrate that one of two situations must occur: all the points in the regions and their reflections (shaded area in Figure 3 ) are preferable (or indifferent) to , and all the other points are worse than , or all the points in the regions and their......middle of paper......significant Tarian calculation. However, unit comparability remains if the classification is invariant only under an appropriate subset of translated rescaling, while the proof assumes invariance under any translated rescaling. In other words, the proof assumes that public services have unitary comparability and nothing more than unitary comparability. This strong assumption is already very close to utilitarianism. A Rawlsian, for example, would immediately object to this because it makes the comparison of the worst actors meaningless from the start. If the utility vectors are in the state and in the state, the Rawlsian prefers due to the greater utility of the disadvantaged actor. However, a translated rescaling maps these vectors to and respectively, where the Rawlsian preference is reversed. A similar point applies to the derivation of a maximum welfare function from the comparability of levels.