The Value of a Human Life
Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago to Economics
This is inspired by Mike M's interesting comments here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
"Your claim is the reverse, that we are saddened by the victimization of one, but outraged at the deaths of many. And why not? I mean, can you say that one person is "worth" more than some number of others?"
I can imagine a thought experiment in which the same car has various levels of safety features available at different prices. Then you take a cohort of buyers with equal driving records. In this thought experiment, there is reliable data for how many death's will occur at each level of safety. Suppose there are some amazing features that cost millions of dollars. Or you an inexpensive Ford Pinto that can catch fire violently in moderate collisions. We could take the amount people pay for safety divided by the probability of a sever collision and calculate how much they value the lives of themselves and their passengers.
This sounds meretricious. It's like measuring the value of time with family by how much extra pay it would take for someone to take a job requiring one hour extra round-trip travel. But job choice and car safety features are real-world questions that must be answered. If we simply say because life is priceless, we should spare no expense, things will be prohibitively expensive.
This was part of the backlash against the Ford Pinto case. There were documents in which they determined which safety features were included by looking at cost * number of units produced < * number of projected deaths + value lost to disability * number of projected disabilities.
People found this unsettling, and it made Ford look bad. But I don't see what else Ford could do.
"Your claim is the reverse, that we are saddened by the victimization of one, but outraged at the deaths of many. And why not? I mean, can you say that one person is "worth" more than some number of others?"
I can imagine a thought experiment in which the same car has various levels of safety features available at different prices. Then you take a cohort of buyers with equal driving records. In this thought experiment, there is reliable data for how many death's will occur at each level of safety. Suppose there are some amazing features that cost millions of dollars. Or you an inexpensive Ford Pinto that can catch fire violently in moderate collisions. We could take the amount people pay for safety divided by the probability of a sever collision and calculate how much they value the lives of themselves and their passengers.
This sounds meretricious. It's like measuring the value of time with family by how much extra pay it would take for someone to take a job requiring one hour extra round-trip travel. But job choice and car safety features are real-world questions that must be answered. If we simply say because life is priceless, we should spare no expense, things will be prohibitively expensive.
This was part of the backlash against the Ford Pinto case. There were documents in which they determined which safety features were included by looking at cost * number of units produced < * number of projected deaths + value lost to disability * number of projected disabilities.
People found this unsettling, and it made Ford look bad. But I don't see what else Ford could do.
The value of a human life depends on the question, of value to whom? A person determines the value of his life to himself through the choices he makes in becoming what he is. His value to others depends on what he is and the value of that to them. Life is the fundamental value philosophically, but the degree of value of each person's life to himself and to others depends on achieving its potential.
But human rights are the same for all and do not depend on individual choices of specific values. Our rights are a value by the nature of human beings.
The issue of the economics and safety depends on who is paying for what and the rights of the individual. The value of a human being philosophically -- and of his rights -- is not the same as someone's economic value to someone else in a market.
Responsibility for negligence in misleading or unexpectedly dangerous products does not depend on economics. What kind of car someone wants with what degree of protection he wants to pay for beyond what is normally expected is up to him. When a car company makes decisions on what safety features to offer in different models, it is offering a product that it thinks people want for the price in a market, not deciding the "value of a human life". Car companies engage in trade, they do not serve others altruistically.
.
I love driving compact cars that handle well.
I've owned one ever since I could afford the expense myself.
Been driving the most popular (and so much fun to drive) roadster since its inception in 1989.
From 2008:
http://ohsorare.com/miata/miata18.jpg
I'm ditching the two STIs soon, when I get my new Focus RS.
I had a colleague whose wife died around 2000 in a very minor accident; she was killed by the airbag deploying. A few years later he said he had researched it carefully when he sued the car maker. He said he believed Ralph Nader's activism played a role in his wife's death. Nader pushed for air bags, he said, before the industry was ready.
Funny...I bought a new 73 pinto while in AIT (army) just before graduation...on the way home on leave we passed a Vega aflame after a rear end collision on the Penn Pike. When I went to my duty station I left the car with my dad...he got rear ended...never caught fire, at 150K miles, we gave the car to my brother-in-law and he got rear ended...again (without the so called Co. fix)...never caught fire.
Always wondered if that too, was a Ralph Nader style pile of crap.
As for the bigger question...There are risks to living and no guarantees but one should always do the very best one can with what one has...