Ethics 101 - To Put A Price On Life

[Yahweh]

I thought I'd have a bit of fun and pose an Ethical scenario.

Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?

Seriously, who can put a price on life. No one would say with enough money, you could buy a human's life, right?

Question 2: Should the government be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in a third-world country?

What? Its my money, screw those people and their crappy little country.




Come on kids, you know the answer to this question, you just dont like it.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?

Seriously, who can put a price on life. No one would say with enough money, you could buy a human's life, right?

It may be due to lack of sleep, but I am not sure I understand this question. Are you asking if, given an infinite amount of money, would I spend it to preserve the life of a person or myself? If that is the question you are posing, then my view is simple: if the person is capable of making the deciscion themselves to continue to live (ie, they are aware that they will need to be kept alive by a respirator, but they can live with thst, no pun intended.) Then, yes, I believe it is ethical to do this. However, if that person is in capable of making that decision, then the person closest to them would need to make that choice (and it is not a choice I would envy them.)

Question 2: Should the government be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in a third-world country?

This is a very good question. In the purest sense, however, I would have to say no, since the descision to save another person's life is an individual ethical quandry. To have the government take from one person to help another without giving that choice would be, in my view, ethically wrong.
We are supposed to have a representative government, then the will of the majority is meant to be heard. In this scenario, the choice of the many outweighs the choice of the few. Does this make it ethical or moral for that majority will to supercede the minority will in this respect, probably not.

I am the first to admit, however, that I am a SEEKER of wisdom. I do not always POSESS it. Therefore, I can only speak on my person worldview.

 

[Yahweh]

I just asked the question for fun, because so many people have a hard time answering it.

---------------------------------------------------
Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?
---------------------------------------------------
Then, yes, I believe it is ethical to do this.

Cool.

However, if that person is in capable of making that decision, then the person closest to them would need to make that choice (and it is not a choice I would envy them.)

Thats another type of Ethics, its not applicable in my scenario. One of the things people like to do when they analyze ethical questions is add every kind of "what if" exception they can think of, Ethical questions should be taken on an "as is" basis.

---------------------------------------------------
Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?
---------------------------------------------------
I would have to say no

First you suggest "Yeah, money is no object when saving lives", you turn around and go the other way when you say "No, the government shouldnt take my money to save others". MAKE UP YOUR MIND !

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yahweh,

Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?

No. It may sound heartless, but that is simply not a practical position. To adopt that position would imply that you literally have to give up everything you own, and all of your money, to people whose lives that money could save.

Everybody ha values, and there is always a balance. I value human life, but I also value things like my own life, my own happiness, the happiness of my family, my work, and so on...

I value human life more than any of those other things, but there are limits. I am not willing to completely sacrifice all of my other values to preserve the lives of others. But since preserving those other values requires resources, I must necessarily put a limit on how much I value the lives of others.

Question 2: Should the government be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in a third-world country?

Only if that is the will of the people.

Personally I think that Government aid to people in other countries must be based on politics. The Government's sole responsibility is to the people of the country it governs. If those people want to give charity to people in third world countries, then they should do so. The government should not make doing so compulsory. The only cases where the government should be directly giving aid to other countries, is when doing so serves some purpose which benefits the people that government represents. This could vary from things like fulfilling responsibilities the nation has to the international community, to making new allies, to spreading their values to other countries, and so on.


Dr. Stupid

 

[The Mad Linguist]

I agree broadly with Stimpson J. Cat, but I think that a government would be correct in raising taxes sharply to pay for increased aid IF they had been elected on a manifesto that included a promise to do so.

Just springing it on the electorate wouldn't be cricket.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

First you suggest "Yeah, money is no object when saving lives", you turn around and go the other way when you say "No, the government shouldnt take my money to save others". MAKE UP YOUR MIND !

Actually, my two answers are not mutually exclusive, as the entire point of my answer is revolving around the idea of choice.

I feel it is completely ethical for me to spend my money (assuming it is available) to save the life of another. That is my choice, and assuming it is my money. It is not ethical for me (And don't give me the speech about the scenario needing to be taken as is, since that is not valid given your dual question.) to use, say, your money to do it.

As I view it, your questions have little to do with the ethics of life vs death, but rather the ethics of choice vs involuntary compulsion. In the scenarios you describe, one can be ethical, the other, to me, is clearly not.

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh,

No. It may sound heartless, but that is simply not a practical position. To adopt that position would imply that you literally have to give up everything you own, and all of your money, to people whose lives that money could save.

Its true, the heartless answer one I also take myself. But, if the event occurred that my beautiful loving wife were refused a life saving medical procedure simply because we didnt have the money, I wouldnt know what to say or do (that doesnt involve foul language and the harming of medical officials).

Really, the only to answer the second question is to say "If someone feels that they are morally obligated to help these third world country folk, then they should help them". I dont know what to think to suggest that a person who does not fork over cash to help starving children is morally responsible (to at least some degree) for their deaths. Of course, people like me recognize the difference between charity and moral responsibilty.

(If it helps at all, I've never given money to any of those foundations... naughty bad Yahweh...)

 

[Boo]

Yahweh,

Your first question has some very interesting implications and you touch upon one when you mentioned your wife being ill. Our current medical system does not allow for the denial of life saving treatment IF you go to the ER. They must stabilize your condition and transport you to an appropriate facility regardless of your ability to pay. Current law makes it illegal for a hospital to ask you for how or if you can pay prior to treatment being started. This is usually interpreted to mean an exam by a Physician. It is for this reason that many ER's have such long waiting times and are overcrowded. The poor and working class cannot afford insurance or treatment so they go to ER's. They know they will be treated.

Let's move onto cost. Culturally we want to preserve life at any cost. If an individual can afford to do so they will get the latest and greatest. Those that rely insurance will receive the latest and greatest until they reach the cap on their policy. Paying out of pocket means you need to decide if you are willing to bankrupt yourself and your family in search of a possible cure or more effective treatment. Very few people are able to grasp the terms incurable or terminal and want to hold out for a "miracle".

I am not willing to place that financial burden on my family. I want good odds not the remote possibility or maybe's. Nor do I want to pay for someone elses "miracle" or their gamble against the odds.

Individuals and governments should do what they can within the limits of budget, not sacrificing all for a gamble against the odds.



Boo

 

[BobK]

Since we're talking about cost it seems we should start out by finding the value of the average person to the economy.

That value should probably be related to yearly GDP.

I'll use some rough figures here, so don't jump on me.

US population 285,000,000
US GDP 10,000,000,000,000
Average future life expectancy 40 years

GDP/population = $35,087 per year

$35087*life expectancy = $1,403,508

So the monetary value of a human life to US society is about $1,403,508 in current dollars. I seems to me that any other monetary worth adjustments would be a subset of this value.

That's why most jury awards gall me to no end. Is an eighty year old women really entitled to several millon dollars for spilling coffee on herself?

How an individual judges the 'cost' in emotional value is determined by their relationship to the life in question.

Answer to 2nd question is no, unless we are getting something of sufficient offsetting value in return.

Editted calculation.

 

[evildave]

I'm a little bit with Bob on this.

A little heavier into the personal responsibility side myself, though.

Your life is really only as valuable as you make it. If you don't value it, why should it be worth anything more to anyone else?

$1.5~1.6 million sounds just fine as a baseline value to me. Of course, one problem comes in when you place that dollar figure on life and ask how much "less valuable" are people in third world nations.

Literally, in the case of Ford, it was "Our Bronco's design defects will kill an estimated xxxx people... but they're very profitable and we can afford the possible lawsuits better than retooling to fix it."

That little bit of trivia came out in one such lawsuit. The fact that Ford operated in those terms made a big emotional impact on the jury.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A life's worth is not able to be measured accurately in quantitative terms, IMO.

 

[BobK]

A life's worth is not able to be measured accurately in quantitative terms, IMO.

You're right, at an individual level, where emotion gets involved you could argue a life's worth endlessly. On the other hand at the level of a society, emotional attachments tend to balance out across the populous. Everyone has a small circle of people that matter more to them than the rest of society. This being about equal for everyone, I would pose that it makes emotion cancel out of any equation of worth, relative to society.

As an individual, I value my relationships more than the rest of society values my relationships. If I could afford it, I would spend what ever it takes to preserve the life of someone close to me,
simply due to emotional envolvement. Society cannot afford to do this. Society should operate on a rational not emotional level. Not that it always does.

I just figure when you see huge judgements being awarded, the figure 1.4 million dollars might give you an idea of the reality of the judgement.

 

[sorgoth]

To question 1: No. I may sound fatalistic, but most people forget that death is just as natural as life. We should go to a certain extent to save lives, simply for the fact that it makes people happy (family, friends, whatever.) However...when it comes to cases where people are in a coma for months, or their condition is simply NOT IMPROVING for a long time...it simply isn't worth it anymore.The same goes to going for extremes to save babies that, even IF they survive, are probably going to be severely mentally retarded...better no life than a life like that. Also, our government is a democracy, so for
Question 2: It's what the people want. What would I vote for? I think the money would be better spent on a science program to genetically modify foods (Rice that could have a built in vaccine, for example.) I think the money would simply be more worth it.

 

[Teh Wiccan]

Life is priceless... Thats all I'm saying.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think there's a problem with the premise. Giving money to some people means other people have less money. I think the premise implies that we can feed otheres without costs to ourselves. If we dramatically increase taxes to feed the world, our ecomony will slow, and maybe shrink. Then, there will be less to give others, and eventually we'll start to starve ourselves. On the other hand, with a booming ecomony, we can give a smaller part of our production, and still give more over all.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't give, just that the equation has two sides. From a moral perspective, I think that helping otheres is the right thing to do, but hurting someone else to do it is not. You can't simply say, "spend more to help others." It isn't that simple.

 

[toddjh]

That's why most jury awards gall me to no end. Is an eighty year old women really entitled to several millon dollars for spilling coffee on herself?

Ah, but now you're getting into compensatory versus punitive damages. Compensatory damages are exactly what the name implies: intended as compensation for the victim. They are usually fairly small.

The million-dollar awards are typically punitive damages, designed to hit the offender across the nose with a rolled-up newspaper in order to deter them from trying to pull the same thing again. In my opinion, this money should go to the government rather than the victim -- more of a fine than an award. This would increase revenue as well as lower the number of frivolous lawsuits, since there would be less money to be gained.

Jeremy

 

[Mercutio]

I really, really, loathe the term "right" as used in this exercise:

Question 1: Is the right to life so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?

I live in a state that has "live free or die" as its motto, implying that freedom is every bit as precious as life itself.

Question 1: Is the right to liberty so fundamental, that price should not be a factor in preserving it?

What about the pursuit of happiness? Is that right so precious that money is no object?

So, what if one's right to life conflicts with another's right to liberty? What if anybody here conflicts with my right to the happiness of pursuit? (er, strike that. reverse it.)

How can something be called a fundamental right (or worse, an inalienable right, or even a god-given right) when any shmoe can take it from you? Bleargh.

 

[jimmygun]

Answer #1...The closer to home, the more monetary value a person has.

Answer #2...Taxes like water will seek their own level. Should the government raise taxes too high the public will seek the underground economy, stolen goods, smuggled goods etc. The loss of revenue will offset the gains. If the government raises taxes greatly to spend in an unpopular way they will shoot themselves in the foot.

Charity begins at home. This means that the impetus for charity must come from the individual or at least be popular with him or her.