Cost of life

[myata]

I recall a few months ago there was a thread about trekkers on Everest abandoning unfortunate co-traveller to certain death. Prevailing argument at the time was that 1) he brought it up himself and 2) people going there invest too much in their expeditions to risk them fail, even at a cost of human life.

Here's an imaginary situation: I have a very important interview, which I worked to obtain for many months; getting into this position would completely change my future and open new horizons; not to say make a huge difference in my paycheck; also no need to say there're many other candidates, so it's critically important to be there on the first call. I spend more time than I counted on in a traffic jam and now I'm barely making it. As I turn to take a shortcut driving by a beach I see a person in distress in water (it's past the season and the beach is unsupervised). I'm a good swimmer and pretty certain that I could rescue them. However, waiting for help and all such would most likely mean I'll miss the interview. And, there's no one else in site.

Are the two situations equivalent? Would I be justified to use the same argument as in the Everest case? Or saving a life should outweigh the material cost, however high it may be?

[August1991]

I think your example is weak. Almost everyone would you say that you should stop and save the drowning person. Would your prospective employer like to learn otherwise?

---

A better example would be spending money on better hospitals or better roads. Today in Montreal, a bridge collapsed and several people were killed. How much money should the government spend on fixing bridges? We spent a billion dollars on a gun registry and many people said that was a good investment if it "saves one life".

Well, a billion dollars on a gun registry means one billion dollars less for bridges and roads. How many Canadians are killed on two-lane highways that could have been expanded to four lanes?

Here's another way of seeing the problem:

So, how do we find out how much a life is really worth? One of the best ways is to measure how much extra you have to pay someone to take a dangerous job. If lion tamers and elephant tamers have comparable skills and comparable working conditions, but lion tamers earn $20,000 a year more than elephant tamers, it's probably because that's what it takes to compensate someone for the risk of being eaten by a lion.

Link

[bk59]

Interesting question. Do you have a link for any info about the Everest situation that you brought up?

August's link brings up the fact that economists have placed a dollar value on a human life. Let's say, based on the link, that a life is worth $5 million. From a purely economical standpoint, spending any more than that $5 million would be a waste.

In terms of the question "what should a government spend its money on?"... I'd love to say that a human life is priceless and they should spend whatever it takes to save even one life. Unfortunately, governments can't really do that. You could imagine half the federal budget being spent on saving two people. Likewise, a government shouldn't be saying that it won't spend more than (from our example) $5 million per person on a program that could save lives. They have to find that balance of helping the most people for the best dollar value.

The example of a two lane highway brings up an interesting problem though. Where do you spend money meant to save lives, when the outcomes of those expenses are uncertain? For example, to save lives that were lost on a two lane highway, do you spend money on expanding the highway to four lanes? Or do you spend money to better educate drivers? Or maybe spend it on improving car safety standards?

As for the original example... I would hope that everyone votes in favour of saving the drowning person. Especially because in the example it wouldn't cost you anything. You may not get the job anyway, meaning that you let someone die for no reason. Aside from that, chances are that after saving a life the company would let you reschedule your interview. In a weird, selfish way, saving that life might even help you stand out from your competition.

[Charles Anthony]

From a purely economical standpoint, spending any more than that $5 million would be a waste.

Your interpretation of the economic analysis is misguided. The analysis does not say that it would be a "waste" but rather that the people (whose lives are at risk) do not value their OWN lives more than $5 million. The economist is only relating the decisions of those specific people in terms of the money that they spend themselves to protect their own lives.

In terms of the question "what should a government spend its money on?"... I'd love to say that a human life is priceless and they should spend whatever it takes to save even one life.

Ridiculous.

Here is an excercise for you: how much should a bankrupt government leading an impoverished nation spend to save a human life?

Unfortunately, governments can't really do that. You could imagine half the federal budget being spent on saving two people.

Yeah, the people they govern would not likely want them to do so anyway. If their taxes -- or public debt -- were so high, you would certainly get a violent revolution to overthrow the government.

The example of a two lane highway brings up an interesting problem though. Where do you spend money meant to save lives, when the outcomes of those expenses are uncertain?

One place to start would be to open our eyes and at the very least, spend the money on determining how to reduce that uncertainty -- instead of wasting it on the gun registry.

As for the original example... I would hope that everyone votes in favour of saving the drowning person.

In the event that somebody DOES NOT stop to save the drowning person, this hypothetical example demonstrates that the cost of life depends on who is paying for it.

[myata]

The thread in question is here.

(I couldn't fathom to search for it in the "Federal Politics"). The example was intended to parallel the situation on the mountain, where multiple climbers walked by the dying man, apparently, without providing any help.

[Wilber]

Using your example, you only refer to the possible monetary and career costs to you personally. You alone can balance that against going through the rest of your life knowing you allowed someone to die because of them. No one can do that for you.

We have a similar moral dilemma when it comes to what society is willing to spend but the burden must be shared by us all. People who haul out the old canard " if it only saves one life it will be worth it" are dangerous to all of us because they are not really interested in saving lives but justifying their own prejudices or advancing their own agendas.

The gun registry is a good example because the phrase was and is, often used by those promoting it. One billion to save one life is worth it. Does that make sense to anyone? If the entire national debt had been put into health care and the net result was to save 500 lives, would the majority of us think that represented good value for the amount of money spent? I think not.

[bk59]

Your interpretation of the economic analysis is misguided. The analysis does not say that it would be a "waste" but rather that the people (whose lives are at risk) do not value their OWN lives more than $5 million. The economist is only relating the decisions of those specific people in terms of the money that they spend themselves to protect their own lives.

From the link, the specific example that is closest to what I was talking about was this:

"Should a town of 100 people spend $6 million on a piece of equipment that is likely, over the long run, to save one life? Not if a life is worth only $5 million. Buying the equipment means forcing the average taxpayer to spend $60,000 for a level of safety that's worth only $50,000 to her."

I think it's safe to say that in the above case, the individual taxpayer would consider that extra $10,000 per taxpayer to be wasted by the town (i.e. better spent somewhere else).

Ridiculous.

Here is an excercise for you: how much should a bankrupt government leading an impoverished nation spend to save a human life?

I think you may have reacted a little too quickly... If you read the whole paragraph that I wrote it should answer your question. Specifically my last sentence.

myata, thanks for the link. I did a quick search, but must not have been looking under "Federal Politics".

I don't want to get too much into the gun registry simply because that wasn't the point of the thread. But... It is an excellent example of a government program that really could provide value and yet its cost has been WAY too much for what it gives us. It's just too bad that our politicians only take extreme positions on this one: either kill the whole thing (and lose the value it gives us) or do anything it takes to keep it going (no matter what the cost).

[Figleaf]

Mya

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[myata]

I'm not sure if the public policy decisions should be interpreted within the same context. These decision are often (always?) made in a collective manner and most officials wouldn't accept to bear them on their conscience, nor I think it is expected or advised.

But, from the individual's standpoint, the question in the both situations is the same: what material cost (to an individual) would justify thier concious decision to forego someone else's life? The only difference between the two situations seems to be the environment. I can't see why it should matter, but maybe someone thinks otherwise?

The apparent paradox is that within any moral background (strictly individualistic being as good as any other), applied consistently, both situations should lead to the same decision - yet it seems that many would consider the mountain example in a more forgiving light. Is it some sort of moral "visual illusion", or there's a reason for that?

[Wilber]

But, from the individual's standpoint, the question in the both situations is the same: what material cost (to an individual) would justify thier concious decision to forego someone else's life?

Nothing justifies it morally, its a matter of what an individual's conscience can justify to themselves. Don't expect others to agree or sympathize.

[Renegade]

We have discussed the same or similar issues before: link