03/24 - Putting a Price Tag on Life - HARVARD's Michael Sandel's JUSTICE

Summary

The video script explores Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy, emphasizing the principle of maximizing overall happiness or utility. It delves into the practical application of this principle through cost-benefit analysis, highlighting controversial examples such as the Ford Pinto case and the valuation of human life in various scenarios. The script also addresses criticisms of utilitarianism, particularly concerning the treatment of minority rights and the aggregation of diverse values into a single measure, concluding with a discussion on the implications for moral theory.

Takeaways

• 📚 Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarian philosophy, believed in maximizing overall happiness or utility as the highest principle of morality.
• 🧮 Utilitarianism is often applied in cost-benefit analysis, where the value of benefits and costs are quantified, typically in monetary terms, to determine the best course of action.
• 🚬 A controversial example of cost-benefit analysis was conducted by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic, suggesting that the government gains financially from citizens smoking due to reduced healthcare and pension costs.
• 🚗 The Ford Pinto case highlighted the ethical issues with cost-benefit analysis when it was revealed that Ford decided not to improve vehicle safety due to the perceived high cost relative to the assigned value of human lives saved.
• 💡 Some critics of utilitarianism argue that it does not adequately respect individual or minority rights, potentially sacrificing them for the perceived greater good.
• 🤔 The debate over assigning a monetary value to human life in cost-benefit analysis raises questions about the ethics of quantifying the value of life and the potential devaluation of human suffering.
• 🔢 The psychologist's study from the 1930s attempted to measure various life experiences in monetary terms, suggesting that all values might be quantifiable, but also highlighting the absurdity of assigning values to certain experiences.
• 🚨 The transcript raises the question of whether all values and goods can be translated into a single uniform measure, which is a foundational assumption of utilitarianism.
• 📉 The transcript discusses the potential shortcomings of utilitarianism, including the risk of overlooking individual rights and the difficulty of aggregating diverse values into a single measure.
• 🤝 The discussion includes various perspectives on utilitarianism, with some participants defending its practicality in decision-making and others expressing concerns about its ethical implications.
• 🌐 The script touches on the broader implications of utilitarianism for policy, law, and moral philosophy, and how it is perceived and applied in different contexts.

Q & A

What is the main principle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy?

The main principle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy is to maximize the general welfare, collective happiness, or the overall balance of pleasure over pain, which is also known as maximizing utility.

Why did Bentham believe that the principle of maximizing utility should be applied to individuals, communities, and legislators?

Bentham believed that since pain and pleasure govern all individuals, any moral system must take them into account. Since a community is the sum of individuals, maximizing utility should guide personal decisions, policy-making, and legislation to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

What is cost-benefit analysis, and how is it related to utilitarianism?

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used by companies and governments to evaluate the costs and benefits of various proposals, often assigning a monetary value to represent utility. It is related to utilitarianism as it embodies the utilitarian logic of maximizing utility by comparing the sum of benefits against the sum of costs.

What controversy arose from the cost-benefit analysis commissioned by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic regarding smoking?

The controversy arose because the analysis concluded that the government gains financially from citizens smoking due to increased tax revenues and savings in healthcare, housing, and pension costs when people die prematurely from smoking-related diseases. This was seen as a heartless calculation that monetized human life and suffering.

What was the Ford Pinto case, and how did it relate to cost-benefit analysis?

The Ford Pinto case involved a car model with a vulnerable fuel tank that could explode in rear collisions, leading to deaths and injuries. Ford conducted a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to install a safety device. They did not install it because the cost of the device exceeded the calculated monetary value of the lives and injuries saved, which led to public outrage and a large settlement in court.

What are some of the criticisms of cost-benefit analysis, especially when it involves placing a dollar value on human life?

Critics argue that cost-benefit analysis can be heartless and fail to account for the intrinsic value of human life, the suffering of families, and the loss of potential contributions from individuals. It can also be seen as unfair to minorities, as their interests may be overlooked in the pursuit of maximizing utility for the majority.

What is the argument against using a monetary value to represent the value of life in cost-benefit analysis?

The argument is that life is inherently priceless and cannot be accurately represented by a monetary value. Assigning a dollar value to life can lead to morally questionable decisions and does not account for the emotional and social impacts of loss.

What was the psychologist's experiment in the 1930s that attempted to measure various unpleasant experiences in monetary terms?

The psychologist conducted a survey asking recipients of relief how much they would have to be paid to undergo various unpleasant experiences, such as having a tooth pulled or eating a live earthworm. The results showed a wide range of values assigned to different experiences, suggesting that not all values can be uniformly measured.

What was the most expensive and least expensive item in the psychologist's survey of unpleasant experiences?

The most expensive item was living the rest of one's life on a farm in Kansas, with respondents valuing it at $300,000. The least expensive was having an upper front tooth pulled, for which people were willing to accept only $4,500 during the Depression.

What are the two main objections to utilitarianism presented in the script?

The first objection is that utilitarianism may not adequately respect individual or minority rights, potentially sacrificing them for the greater good of the majority. The second objection questions the feasibility of aggregating all values and preferences into a single uniform measure, suggesting that some values may be inherently incommensurable.

What is the implication of the psychologist's study for the utilitarian theory of morality?

The study suggests that the utilitarian assumption of being able to translate all goods and values into a single uniform measure may be flawed. If different values cannot be accurately compared or aggregated, it challenges the utilitarian approach to morality, which relies on this assumption for decision-making.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Utilitarian Philosophy and the Greatest Good

The script introduces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, a prominent figure in moral philosophy. Bentham's life and academic background are briefly outlined, leading to an explanation of his utilitarianism principle, which is the maximization of overall happiness or utility. The concept is applied to both personal and political decisions, emphasizing the importance of weighing benefits against costs to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. The script also mentions the use of cost-benefit analysis in modern contexts, such as a controversial study commissioned by Philip Morris regarding smoking in the Czech Republic.

05:00

💵 The Controversy of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Ethics

This paragraph delves into the ethical implications and controversies surrounding cost-benefit analysis, especially when it involves assigning monetary values to human life. The Ford Pinto case is highlighted, where the company's cost-benefit analysis led to a decision not to improve vehicle safety due to the perceived high cost compared to the value of lives saved. The discussion includes the perspectives of various individuals, including those who criticize the approach for undervaluing human life and others who defend it as a necessary tool for decision-making in business and policy.

10:02

📉 Ethical Debates on Assigning Monetary Value to Life

The script continues the debate on the ethical use of cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the difficulty of assigning a monetary value to human life. Participants in the discussion express differing views on whether it's appropriate to quantify the value of life for policy-making purposes. Some argue that it's necessary for making decisions, while others believe that human life is inherently priceless and cannot be accurately represented by a monetary figure. The conversation also touches on the potential inflation-adjusted value of life and the broader implications for utilitarian ethics.

15:03

🤔 Objections to Utilitarianism and Minority Rights

The fourth paragraph presents various objections to the utilitarian approach, particularly concerning its treatment of minority rights and the aggregation of individual preferences. The discussion highlights the potential for utilitarianism to overlook the rights and needs of smaller groups in favor of the majority's interests. Examples from historical and hypothetical scenarios are used to illustrate the potential injustices of a purely utilitarian calculus, prompting a deeper examination of whether certain rights are inviolable, regardless of their impact on overall utility.

20:05

📊 The Challenge of Measuring All Values in Uniform Terms

The final paragraph discusses the challenge of measuring all values and human concerns using a single uniform scale, as assumed by utilitarianism. It references a study conducted by a psychologist in the 1930s, which attempted to quantify various life experiences by asking people how much they would be willing to be paid to endure them. The results of the study, including the perceived values of different experiences, are used to question whether it's feasible to reduce all aspects of human life to a single measure of value, thereby challenging the foundational principles of utilitarian ethics.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. In the video, this concept is central to understanding Jeremy Bentham's philosophy, which argues for maximizing utility or the general welfare. The script discusses utilitarianism in the context of moral and political decision-making, such as in the case of Dudley and Stephens, and cost-benefit analysis.

💡Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher who is known as the founder of modern utilitarianism. The script mentions his life and academic background, emphasizing his dedication to jurisprudence and moral philosophy. Bentham's principle of maximizing utility is a recurring theme throughout the video, illustrating how his ideas have been applied to various ethical dilemmas and policy decisions.

💡Cannibalism Case

The 'cannibalism case' refers to the legal case of Queen versus Dudley and Stephens, which is used in the script to explore the moral and ethical implications of utilitarianism. The case involved survivors of a shipwreck who resorted to cannibalism to survive, raising questions about the morality of their actions under utilitarian principles.

💡Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used by companies and governments to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a particular decision or project. In the video, it is presented as a practical application of utilitarian logic, where the value of the benefits and costs are quantified, often in monetary terms, to determine the most beneficial course of action.

💡Philip Morris

Philip Morris is a tobacco company mentioned in the script in relation to a controversial cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic. The company's study, which suggested that the government gains from citizens smoking due to tax revenues and savings on healthcare and pensions, was criticized for its utilitarian approach to valuing human life.

💡Ford Pinto Case

The Ford Pinto case is a historical example used in the script to discuss the ethical implications of cost-benefit analysis. Ford conducted an analysis to determine whether it was worth installing a safety device in their vehicles to prevent fuel tank explosions. The company's decision not to install the device, based on a monetary valuation of human life and property, led to legal repercussions and ethical debate.

💡Value of Life

The 'value of life' is a concept discussed in the context of cost-benefit analysis, where a monetary value is assigned to human life to quantify the benefits of preventing deaths or injuries. The script uses examples from the Ford Pinto case and a hypothetical cell phone use while driving scenario to illustrate the complexities and ethical concerns of placing a dollar value on human life.

💡Minority Rights

Minority rights refer to the protection and consideration of the interests of smaller groups within a society, even when they are outnumbered. The script raises concerns about whether utilitarianism, with its focus on the greatest good for the greatest number, can adequately respect and protect the rights and interests of minority groups.

💡Aggregating Utility

Aggregating utility involves adding up the total utility or happiness derived from a decision or action across all individuals affected. The script questions whether it is possible or ethical to aggregate individual utilities into a single measure, as this could potentially overlook the unique values and rights of individuals or minority groups.

💡Thorndike's Study

Thorndike's study, mentioned in the script, was an attempt to quantify various life experiences by asking people how much money they would require to undergo certain unpleasant experiences. The study was used to explore the possibility of translating all values into a single measure of value, questioning the assumptions of utilitarianism regarding the commensurability of all goods.

💡Commensurability

Commensurability refers to the ability to compare different items or values on a common scale. The script discusses the concept in the context of utilitarianism, questioning whether all goods and values can be measured on the same scale, as would be required for utilitarian calculations of maximizing overall happiness.

Highlights

The lifeboat case of Queen versus Dudley and Stephens is discussed in the context of utilitarian philosophy.

Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy emphasizes maximizing general welfare or collective happiness, known as utility.

Bentham's reasoning for the principle of utility is based on the belief that pain and pleasure govern human actions.

Utilitarianism is applied to both individual and community levels, including policy and law decisions.

Cost-benefit analysis, a utilitarian approach, is commonly used by companies and governments to evaluate proposals.

A controversial cost-benefit analysis by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic suggested government gains from citizens smoking.

The Ford Pinto case involved a cost-benefit analysis that weighed the value of human life against car safety improvements.

Criticism of cost-benefit analysis includes the difficulty of assigning a monetary value to human life and suffering.

Some argue that cost-benefit analysis should not be applied to matters of human life due to its inherent limitations.

A study by Thorndike attempted to prove that all values can be measured by a single uniform scale.

The study found that people were willing to undergo various unpleasant experiences for different amounts of money.

The most expensive item in the study was living in Kansas, while the least was having a tooth pulled.

The study raises questions about the validity of using a single measure to quantify all human values and experiences.

Critics of utilitarianism worry about the impact on minority rights and whether individual rights can be adequately respected.

Some participants argue that certain rights, like the right to life, should not be traded off for the sake of utility.

The discussion includes the ethical implications of utilitarianism and its application in modern policy and law.

The transcript concludes with a debate on the ability to aggregate all values into a single measure and its consequences for utilitarian theory.

Transcripts

[Music]

[Music]

last time

we argued

about the case of the Queen versus

Dudley and Stephens

the lifeboat case the case of

cannibalism that see and

with the arguments about the lifeboat in

mind the arguments for and against what

Dudley and Stephens did in mind let's

turn back to the philosophy

the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy

Bentham

Bentham was born in England in 1748 at

the age of twelve he went to Oxford at

fifteen he went to law school he was

admitted to the bar at age 19 but he

never practiced law

instead he devoted his life to

jurisprudence and moral philosophy

last time we began to consider Bentham's

version of utilitarianism

the main idea is simply stated and it's

this

the highest principle of morality

whether personal or political morality

is to maximize the general welfare or

the collective happiness or the overall

balance of pleasure over pain

in a phrase

maximize utility

Bentham arrives at this principle by the

following line of reasoning we're all

governed by pain and pleasure they are

our sovereign masters and so any moral

system has to take account of them how

best to take account by maximizing and

this leads to the principle of the

greatest good for the greatest number

what exactly should we maximize

Bentham tells us

penis or more precisely

utility

maximizing utility is a principle not

only for individuals but also for

communities and for legislators

what after all is a community Bentham

asks

it's the sum of the individuals who

comprise it and that's why in deciding

the best policy in deciding what the law

should be in deciding what's just

citizens and legislators should ask

themselves the question if we add up all

of the benefits of this policy

and

subtract all of the costs

the right thing to do is the one that

maximizes the balance of happiness over

suffering

that's what it means to maximize utility

now today I want to see

whether you agree or disagree with it

and it often goes this utilitarian logic

under the name of cost-benefit analysis

which is used by companies and

by governments all the time and what it

involves is placing a value usually a

dollar value to stand for utility on the

costs and the benefits of various

proposals

recently in the Czech Republic there was

a proposal to increase the excise tax on

smoking Philip Morris the tobacco

company

does huge business in the Czech Republic

they commissioned a study of

cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the

Czech Republic and what their

cost-benefit analysis found was the

government gains by

having Czech citizens smoke now how do

they gain it's true that there are

negative effects to the public of

enhance of the check government because

there are increased healthcare costs for

people who develop smoking related

diseases

on the other hand there were positive

effects and those were added up on the

other side of the ledger the positive

effects included for the most part

various tax revenues that the government

derives from the sale of cigarette

products but it also included healthcare

savings to the government when people

die early pension savings you don't have

to pay pensions for as long and also

savings in housing costs for the elderly

and

when all of the costs and benefits were

added up the

philip morris study found that there is

a net public finance gain in the czech

republic of a hundred and forty seven

million dollars and given the savings in

housing and health care and pension

costs the government enjoys the saving

of savings of over twelve hundred

dollars for each person who dies

prematurely due to smoking

cost-benefit analysis now

those among you who are defenders of

utilitarianism may think that this is an

unfair test

Philip Morris was pilloried in the press

and they issued an apology for this

heartless calculation

you may say that what's missing here is

something that the utilitarian can

easily incorporate namely

the value to the person and to the

families of those who died from lung

cancer

what about the value of life

some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a

measure for the value of life

one of the most famous of these involved

the Ford Pinto case did any of you read

about that this was back in the 1970s do

you remember what the Ford Pinto was a

kind of car anybody

it was a small car subcompact car very

popular but it had one problem which is

the fuel tank was at the back of the car

and in rear collisions the fuel tank

exploded

and some people were killed and some

severely injured

victims of these injuries took Ford to

court to sue and in the court case it

turned out that Ford had long since

known about the vulnerable fuel tank and

had done a cost-benefit analysis to

determine whether it would be worth it

to put in a special shield that would

protect the fuel tank and prevent it

from exploding

they did a cost-benefit analysis the

cost per part

to increase the safety of the Pinto

they calculated at $11 per part

and

here's this was the cost-benefit

analysis that emerged in the trial

$11 per part

at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to

a total cost of a hundred and thirty

seven million dollars to improve the

safety but then they calculated the

benefits of spending all this money on a

safer car and they counted a hundred and

eighty deaths and they assigned a dollar

value two hundred thousand dollars per

death

180 injuries

67,000 and then the cost to repair the

replacement cost for two thousand

vehicles that would be destroyed without

the safety device seventy seven hundred

dollars per vehicle so the benefits

turned out to be only forty nine point

five million and so they didn't install

the device needless to say when this

memo of the four motor company's

cost-benefit analysis came out in the

trial

it appalled the jurors who awarded a

huge settlement

is this a counterexample to the

utilitarian idea of calculating

because for it included of a measure of

the value of life

now who here wants to defend

cost-benefit analysis from this apparent

counter example who has a defense

or do you think this completely destroys

the whole utilitarian calculus

yes

yeah well I think that once again

they've made the same mistake the

previous case did that they assigned a

dollar value to human life and once

again they failed to take account things

like suffering and emotional losses by

the families I mean families lost

earnings but they also lost a loved one

and that

is more valued than $200,000 right and

wait wait that's good what's your name

Julia rota so with two hundred thousand

Julie is -

too low a figure because it doesn't

include the loss of a loved one and the

loss of those years of life

what would be what do you think would be

a more accurate number I

don't believe I could give a number I

think that this sort of analysis

shouldn't be applied to issues of human

life I think can't be used monetarily so

they didn't just put too low a number

Julie says they were wrong to try to put

any number at all

all right let's hear someone who

you have to adjust for inflation

all right fair enough so what would the

number be now this was 30 this was 35

years ago

two million dollars

you would put two million and what's

your name

Voytek says we have to allow for

inflation we should be more generous

then would you be satisfied that this is

the right way of thinking about the

question I

guess unfortunately it is for

there needs to be a number put somewhere

like I'm not sure that number would be

but I do agree that it could possibly be

a number put on human life all right so

Voytek says and here he disagrees with

truly truly says we can't put a number

on human life for the purpose of a

cost-benefit analysis Wojtek says we

have to because we have to make

decisions somehow

what do other people think about this is

there anyone prepared to defend

cost-benefit analysis here as accurate

as desirable yes oh yeah I think that if

Ford and other car comings didn't use

cost-benefit analysis they'd eventually

go out of business because they wouldn't

be able to be profitable and millions of

people wouldn't be able to use their

cars to get the jobs to put food on

table to feed their children so I think

that if cost-benefit analysis isn't

employed the greater good is sacrificed

in this case all right let me what's

your name Raul Raul

there was recently a study done about

cell phone use by drivers when people

are driving a car and there's a debate

whether that should be banned and

the figure was that some 2,000 people

died as a result of accidents each year

using cell phones and yet the

cost-benefit analysis which was done by

the Center for analysis at Harvard found

that if you look at the benefits of the

cellphone use and you put some value on

the live it comes out about the same

because of the enormous economic benefit

of enabling people to take advantage of

their time that waste time be able to

make deals and talk to friends and so on

while they're driving

doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake

to try to put monetary figures on

questions of human life well I think

that if the great majority of people

tried to derive maximum utility out of a

service like using cell phones and the

convenience that cell phones provide

that sacrifice is necessary for

satisfaction to occur you're you're an

outright utilitarian in

yes okay

all right then one last question row

okay

and I put this to Wojtek what what

dollar figure should be put on human

life to decide whether to ban the use of

cell phones

well I I don't want to arbitrarily

calculate a figure I mean right now I

think that

you want to take it under advisement

yeah but what roughly speaking would it

be you've got twenty three hundred

deaths you've got to assign a dollar

value to know whether you want to

prevent those deaths by banning the use

of cell phones in cars okay so

what would your hunch be how much a

million two million two million was

wojtek's figure yeah is that about right

maybe a million a million yeah

you know the that's good thank you

so these are some of the controversies

that arise these days from cost-benefit

analysis especially those that involve

placing a dollar value on everything to

be added up

well now I want to turn to your

objections to your objections not

necessarily to cost-benefit analysis

specifically because that's just one

version of the utilitarian logic in

practice today

but to the theory as a whole to the idea

that the right thing to do

the just basis for policy in law is to

maximize utility

how many disagree with the utilitarian

approach to law and to the common good

how many agree with it

so more agree than disagree

so let's hear from the critics

yes my main issue with it is that I feel

like you can't say that just because

someone's in the minority what they want

in need is less valuable than someone

who's in the majority so I guess I have

an issue with the idea that the greatest

good for the greatest number is okay

because there's so what about people who

are in the lesser number like it's not

fair to them they didn't have any say in

in where they wanted to be all right

that's an interesting objection you're

worried about the effect on the minority

yes

what's your name by the way Anna

who has an answer to Anna's worry about

the effect on the minority what do you

say to Anna um she said that the

minorities value less I don't think

that's the case because individually the

minorities value is just the same as the

individual of the majority it's just

that the numbers outweigh the

minority and I mean at a certain point

you have to make a decision and I'm

sorry for the minority but sometimes

it's for the general for the greater

good for the greater good Anna what do

you say what's your name young dad what

do you say to jung da-jung that says you

just have to add up people's preferences

and those in the minority do have their

preferences Wade

can you give an example of the kind of

thing you're worried about when you say

you're worried about utilitarianism

violating the concern or respect do the

minority give an example so well with

any of the cases that we've talked about

like for the shipwreck one I think the

boy who was eaten still had as much of a

right to live as the other people and

just because he was the

minority in that case the one who maybe

had less of a chance to keep living that

doesn't mean that the others

automatically have a right to eat him

just because it would give a greater

amount of people a chance to live so

there may be certain rights that the

minority members have that the

individual has that shouldn't be traded

off for the sake of utility yeah yes

Anna yeah under this would be a test

free for you

back in ancient Rome

they threw Christians to the Lions in

the Coliseum for sport

if you rant think how the utilitarian

calculus would go yes the Christian

thrown to the Lions suffers enormous

excruciating pain but look at the

collective ecstasy of the Romans

yonder

well

in that time I don't if I in modern day

have time to value the to give a number

to the happiness given to the people

watching I don't think any like policy

maker will say the paying of one person

of the suffering one person is much much

is in comparison to the happiness gained

it's no but you have to admit that if

there were enough Romans delirious

enough with happiness it would outweigh

even the most excruciating pain of a

handful of Christians thrown to the lion

so we really have here two different

objections to utilitarianism

one has to do with whether

utilitarianism adequately respects

individual rights or minority rights and

the other has to do with the whole idea

of

aggregating utility or preferences or

values is it possible to aggregate all

values to translate them into dollar

terms

there was in the 8th in the 1930s

and and psychologist who tried to

address this second question he tried to

prove what utilitarianism assumes that

it is possible to

translate all goods all values all human

concerns into a single uniform measure

and he did this by conducting a survey

of young recipients of relief this was

in the 1930s and he asked them he gave

them a list of unpleasant experiences

and he asked them how much would you

have to be paid to undergo the following

experiences and he kept track

for example how much would you have to

be paid to have one upper front tooth

pulled out

or how much would you have to be paid to

have one little one little toe cut off

or to eat a live earthworm six six

inches long

or to live the rest of your life on a

farm in Kansas

or to choke a straight cat to death with

your bare hands

now what do you suppose what do you put

the suppose was the most expensive item

on that list

Kansas

yeah

you're right it was Kansas

for her for Kansas people said they'd

have to pay them they have to be paid

$300,000

what do you think

what do you think was the next most

expensive

not the cat

not the tooth

not the toe

the worm

people said you'd have to pay them

$100,000 to eat the worm

what do you think was the least

expensive item

not the cat

the tooth during the Depression people

were willing to have their tooth pulled

for only

$4,500

now here's what thought here's what

Thorndike

concluded from his study

any want or satisfaction which exists

exists in some amount and is therefore

measurable the life of a dog or a cat or

a chicken consists of appetites cravings

desires and their gratifications so does

the life of human beings though the

appetites and desires are more

complicated

but what about Thorndike study does it

support

Bentham's idea

that all goods all values can be

captured according to a single uniform

measure of value or does the

preposterous character of those

different items on the list

suggest the opposite conclusion

that may be whether we're talking about

life or a Kansas or the worm

maybe the things we value and cherish

can't be captured according to a single

uniform measure of value and if they

can't what are the consequences for the

utilitarian theory of morality that's a

question we'll continue with next time

[Applause]