I do not believe that we can assign a numerical monetary value to human life. Although I understand the reasoning behind cost benefit analysis, I do not know how they can just pick a certain amount of money to say what a human life is worth. I am not sure if there is a cost for a human life. I agree with utilitarianism in that the right thing to do is to maximize utility. However, I also agree with what Micheal Sandel said, "[there are] certain rights the individual has which shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility." The minority does have certain rights which they should not be denied even for the greater good. Some of the time the greater good will not be in the best interest of the minority, and I believe this is acceptable as long as those specific rights are not being violated. John Stuart Mill thought that in order to determine higher and lower pleasures, you must experience both things, and then you will naturally pick the higher pleasure. This was demonstrated in the lecture as three video clips were shown (Shakespeare, Fear Factor, and The Simpsons). Although most of the students liked the Simpsons the best, many of them picked Shakespeare as the higher pleasure. I found this to be interesting. It seemed to be concluded that the higher pleasure required some sort of learning or education. Although watching the Simpsons would bring pleasure for the time being, most believed that Shakespeare would be considered the higher pleasure.
Because of our travels I thought I would bring up that Michael Sandel also mentioned that the body of Bentham is preserved and embalmed at the University of London.
So in this episode, Sandel addresses Bentham’s utilitarianism and consequentialist moral reasoning and the objections to Bentham’s ideas. I do not believe that you can put monetary values on human lives or values. Different people have different values and have a different hierarchy of values from lowest to highest. I agree with some aspects of utilitarianism in different situations but I cannot say that I agree full-heartedly with any given belief in every situation. I do believe that it is important to maximize utility for the common good but we should not deny others certain rights. Some things cannot be traded for any amount of money and cannot be sacrificed for the good of utility. For example, there is no amount of money that I would trade any appendage for. Our body parts, like human lives, are irreplaceable and should not be described in monetary terms. Doctors can try to give me the best substitute but nothing can replace an original fully functioning and healthy body part. Nothing can replace a human life. I do believe that there are some instances where a cost-benefit analysis is a practical way to make big corporate decisions based on utility and profitability, however, analyses that place a value on human life or injury are never fully accurate. To some people, the uncle of someone in a foreign country that you do not know is just another human being; but to that person’s family, he might have a great deal of worth. The point I am trying to make is that no value of life can be fully assessed because everyone has a different value to be put on any particular life and there is no way to gauge the potential that any particular human being has. When cost-benefit analyses are created, people should be aware of the results and/or consequences of their actions. In the case of the Ford Pinto, Ford is morally obligated to inform their potential buyers of situations that could possibly put them in danger. If Ford does not sell the car, they should fix the problem and install the part. If people buy the cars knowing what could happen, then that is their choice and they are responsible for their actions. Same with the cell phone case. Sandel next talked about some observations and theories of John Stuart Mill. Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism. He suggested that one could assign a value on a pleasure by finding someone who had experienced two pleasures and preferred one over the other; therefore labeling it the higher pleasure. Sandel brings up the events that occurred in the coliseum in Rome. In my opinion, a pleasure that comes from someone else’s pain should be completely discounted. Just because the Romans (majority) found it pleasurable to watch people (minority) suffer does not mean that the suffering was for the greater good. I believe that suffering holds a higher value than pleasure when weighing out costs and benefits. I think it is important to minimize suffering before maximizing pleasure. The minority suffered a great deal of pain and deserved the fundamental right of life. I thought that the test to find the higher pleasure or experience was very interesting because I found myself questioning my own opinions. I found that the fear factor clip was exciting and stimulating and the Simpson’s clip an insult to intelligence. The Shakespeare, I found was boring but intelligible as it contained deep thought processes. The only reason I found the Shakespeare clip worthy of noting it as highest was because of what I know from schooling and education about Shakespeare.
I think that, no matter how "beneficial" that cost-benefit analysis might be to businesses, there is no numerical value worthy enough to be associated with a human life. Having lost my father in a sudden accident over three years ago, I can say from personal experience that no matter the amount of money, families and loved ones would be more than willing to return it in exchange for the health and safety of the one they lost. Some of the aspects of utilitarianism have made sense to me as Sandel has presented them, but this one, however, did not. "The greater good for the greater number" is always desirable most of the time, but in this situation, when a life is demeaned by a monetary value, it is best to look at the individual. In the second part of the episode, John Stuart Mill and his major theories were presented, bringing up the idea of prioritizing pleasure into higher and lower categories. Sandel presented the video clips in order to test Mill's theory, and after experiencing the video myself, I have to agree with Mills when he said "Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." While the episode of The Simpsons brought instant pleasure to the masses, but it can be agreed that the pleasure brought from The Simpsons was only temporary, and that Shakespeare would bring about more pleasure in the long run by stimulating higher thought processes. I personally preferred the episode of The Simpsons out of the three clips shown, but like Sandel said, understood that the Shakespeare would benefit me more in the long run.
I have never been able to take a definite side on utilitarianism; more specifically I am undecided on cost-benefit analysis when it incorporates human life. On the one side there is the business perspective, where a numerical value assigned to a human life allows for businesses to make company and industry-wide decisions. The analytical portion of a company is so important that companies must be able to use models in order to succeed. It is hard to say you don't believe in this form of analysis when we reap the benefits everyday: cell phones, laptops, hybrid cars, etc. But, I agree with the other side as well, because without human life, there would be no need for placing a value on human life. Just like Chelsea said above (and I am sorry for your terrible loss), there is nothing more important than life and the loved ones in your life. At the end of the day, that is all we have anyways.
Two comments brought up in Episode 2 that I would like to touch on are: the Czech Republic smoking cost-benefit analysis and the downfalls of maximizing utility. First, I found the statistics for the Czech cost-benefit analysis on whether the government should try to eliminate smoking or not to be truly saddening. The fact that a country would even acknowledge results that concluded that the country would save $1,227 per person who died early from smoking demonstrates that the Czech did not have their citizens' best health in mind. Secondly, my main argument against utilitarianism is that maximizing utility does not respect individual rights, as Sandel and one of his students, Anna, pointed out in his lecture. The United States was founded on the Constitution, which directly addresses the importance of individual rights and thus, these rights are the basis of our country regardless of the specific situation.
I feel it is wrong to assign a monetary value to a human life. Firstly, who is to say what factors go into determining that value? Would every life have an equal value? If its the accomplishment of a person that determines the value of a person's life, then how can you account for the accomplishments that would have happened before they died? I think cost benefit analysis is a system that works great to understand the outcome of a hypothetical situation, but is not applicable when the situation involves putting a monetary value on a human life. I think a human life should always outweigh money, no matter how much, and a human life should never be put on the line to increase profit.
In the second part of the episode, Sandel talked about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism. I feel that the higher pleasure isn't always what will give you the most entertainment at that given moment, but what will provide the most positive influence in your life. After seeing the three video clips, most people thought they would be more entertained by the Simpsons, but decided that Shakespeare was a higher pleasure. I think this is because Shakespeare educates the viewer and therefore influences their life more positively in the long term, whereas the Simpsons has no lasting positive influence, making Shakespeare the higher pleasure.
In my mind, there is no doubt that using cost-benefit analysis is not a valid ethical system when human lives are involved. Sacrificing human lives for money is immoral in itself, not to mention, greedy. I also think that basing the morality of actions on pleasure is not always the best way to go, and often doesn't take into account our rights and duties as human beings. Furthermore, it is not possible to place a universal standard on people's pleasures and displeasures. You may argue that the psychology study conducted in the 1930s proved that a dollar amount can be placed on any human pleasure or displeasure, but even these amounts vary from person to person. This makes the idea of pleasure as a standard for morality difficult to apply to the real world, because it is such a widely varying standard. It is nearly impossible to predict how much pleasure or displeasure a given action will bring to a fellow human being, and this may even be difficult to analyze for one's self. It also doesn't seem likely that an action made by one person could be moral, while for another person it is immoral due to a varying sense of pleasure between the two people.
I do not believe that we can assign a numerical monetary value to human life. Although I understand the reasoning behind cost benefit analysis, I do not know how they can just pick a certain amount of money to say what a human life is worth. I am not sure if there is a cost for a human life. I agree with utilitarianism in that the right thing to do is to maximize utility. However, I also agree with what Micheal Sandel said, "[there are] certain rights the individual has which shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility." The minority does have certain rights which they should not be denied even for the greater good. Some of the time the greater good will not be in the best interest of the minority, and I believe this is acceptable as long as those specific rights are not being violated.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill thought that in order to determine higher and lower pleasures, you must experience both things, and then you will naturally pick the higher pleasure. This was demonstrated in the lecture as three video clips were shown (Shakespeare, Fear Factor, and The Simpsons). Although most of the students liked the Simpsons the best, many of them picked Shakespeare as the higher pleasure. I found this to be interesting. It seemed to be concluded that the higher pleasure required some sort of learning or education. Although watching the Simpsons would bring pleasure for the time being, most believed that Shakespeare would be considered the higher pleasure.
Because of our travels I thought I would bring up that Michael Sandel also mentioned that the body of Bentham is preserved and embalmed at the University of London.
DeleteSo in this episode, Sandel addresses Bentham’s utilitarianism and consequentialist moral reasoning and the objections to Bentham’s ideas. I do not believe that you can put monetary values on human lives or values. Different people have different values and have a different hierarchy of values from lowest to highest. I agree with some aspects of utilitarianism in different situations but I cannot say that I agree full-heartedly with any given belief in every situation. I do believe that it is important to maximize utility for the common good but we should not deny others certain rights. Some things cannot be traded for any amount of money and cannot be sacrificed for the good of utility. For example, there is no amount of money that I would trade any appendage for. Our body parts, like human lives, are irreplaceable and should not be described in monetary terms. Doctors can try to give me the best substitute but nothing can replace an original fully functioning and healthy body part. Nothing can replace a human life. I do believe that there are some instances where a cost-benefit analysis is a practical way to make big corporate decisions based on utility and profitability, however, analyses that place a value on human life or injury are never fully accurate. To some people, the uncle of someone in a foreign country that you do not know is just another human being; but to that person’s family, he might have a great deal of worth. The point I am trying to make is that no value of life can be fully assessed because everyone has a different value to be put on any particular life and there is no way to gauge the potential that any particular human being has. When cost-benefit analyses are created, people should be aware of the results and/or consequences of their actions. In the case of the Ford Pinto, Ford is morally obligated to inform their potential buyers of situations that could possibly put them in danger. If Ford does not sell the car, they should fix the problem and install the part. If people buy the cars knowing what could happen, then that is their choice and they are responsible for their actions. Same with the cell phone case.
ReplyDeleteSandel next talked about some observations and theories of John Stuart Mill. Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism. He suggested that one could assign a value on a pleasure by finding someone who had experienced two pleasures and preferred one over the other; therefore labeling it the higher pleasure. Sandel brings up the events that occurred in the coliseum in Rome. In my opinion, a pleasure that comes from someone else’s pain should be completely discounted. Just because the Romans (majority) found it pleasurable to watch people (minority) suffer does not mean that the suffering was for the greater good. I believe that suffering holds a higher value than pleasure when weighing out costs and benefits. I think it is important to minimize suffering before maximizing pleasure. The minority suffered a great deal of pain and deserved the fundamental right of life. I thought that the test to find the higher pleasure or experience was very interesting because I found myself questioning my own opinions. I found that the fear factor clip was exciting and stimulating and the Simpson’s clip an insult to intelligence. The Shakespeare, I found was boring but intelligible as it contained deep thought processes. The only reason I found the Shakespeare clip worthy of noting it as highest was because of what I know from schooling and education about Shakespeare.
I think that, no matter how "beneficial" that cost-benefit analysis might be to businesses, there is no numerical value worthy enough to be associated with a human life. Having lost my father in a sudden accident over three years ago, I can say from personal experience that no matter the amount of money, families and loved ones would be more than willing to return it in exchange for the health and safety of the one they lost. Some of the aspects of utilitarianism have made sense to me as Sandel has presented them, but this one, however, did not. "The greater good for the greater number" is always desirable most of the time, but in this situation, when a life is demeaned by a monetary value, it is best to look at the individual.
ReplyDeleteIn the second part of the episode, John Stuart Mill and his major theories were presented, bringing up the idea of prioritizing pleasure into higher and lower categories. Sandel presented the video clips in order to test Mill's theory, and after experiencing the video myself, I have to agree with Mills when he said "Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." While the episode of The Simpsons brought instant pleasure to the masses, but it can be agreed that the pleasure brought from The Simpsons was only temporary, and that Shakespeare would bring about more pleasure in the long run by stimulating higher thought processes. I personally preferred the episode of The Simpsons out of the three clips shown, but like Sandel said, understood that the Shakespeare would benefit me more in the long run.
I have never been able to take a definite side on utilitarianism; more specifically I am undecided on cost-benefit analysis when it incorporates human life. On the one side there is the business perspective, where a numerical value assigned to a human life allows for businesses to make company and industry-wide decisions. The analytical portion of a company is so important that companies must be able to use models in order to succeed. It is hard to say you don't believe in this form of analysis when we reap the benefits everyday: cell phones, laptops, hybrid cars, etc. But, I agree with the other side as well, because without human life, there would be no need for placing a value on human life. Just like Chelsea said above (and I am sorry for your terrible loss), there is nothing more important than life and the loved ones in your life. At the end of the day, that is all we have anyways.
ReplyDeleteTwo comments brought up in Episode 2 that I would like to touch on are: the Czech Republic smoking cost-benefit analysis and the downfalls of maximizing utility. First, I found the statistics for the Czech cost-benefit analysis on whether the government should try to eliminate smoking or not to be truly saddening. The fact that a country would even acknowledge results that concluded that the country would save $1,227 per person who died early from smoking demonstrates that the Czech did not have their citizens' best health in mind. Secondly, my main argument against utilitarianism is that maximizing utility does not respect individual rights, as Sandel and one of his students, Anna, pointed out in his lecture. The United States was founded on the Constitution, which directly addresses the importance of individual rights and thus, these rights are the basis of our country regardless of the specific situation.
I feel it is wrong to assign a monetary value to a human life. Firstly, who is to say what factors go into determining that value? Would every life have an equal value? If its the accomplishment of a person that determines the value of a person's life, then how can you account for the accomplishments that would have happened before they died? I think cost benefit analysis is a system that works great to understand the outcome of a hypothetical situation, but is not applicable when the situation involves putting a monetary value on a human life. I think a human life should always outweigh money, no matter how much, and a human life should never be put on the line to increase profit.
ReplyDeleteIn the second part of the episode, Sandel talked about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism. I feel that the higher pleasure isn't always what will give you the most entertainment at that given moment, but what will provide the most positive influence in your life. After seeing the three video clips, most people thought they would be more entertained by the Simpsons, but decided that Shakespeare was a higher pleasure. I think this is because Shakespeare educates the viewer and therefore influences their life more positively in the long term, whereas the Simpsons has no lasting positive influence, making Shakespeare the higher pleasure.
In my mind, there is no doubt that using cost-benefit analysis is not a valid ethical system when human lives are involved. Sacrificing human lives for money is immoral in itself, not to mention, greedy. I also think that basing the morality of actions on pleasure is not always the best way to go, and often doesn't take into account our rights and duties as human beings. Furthermore, it is not possible to place a universal standard on people's pleasures and displeasures. You may argue that the psychology study conducted in the 1930s proved that a dollar amount can be placed on any human pleasure or displeasure, but even these amounts vary from person to person. This makes the idea of pleasure as a standard for morality difficult to apply to the real world, because it is such a widely varying standard. It is nearly impossible to predict how much pleasure or displeasure a given action will bring to a fellow human being, and this may even be difficult to analyze for one's self. It also doesn't seem likely that an action made by one person could be moral, while for another person it is immoral due to a varying sense of pleasure between the two people.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in madipakkam