03/24 - Putting a Price Tag on Life - HARVARD's Michael Sandel's JUSTICE
Summary
TLDRThe 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
- ๐ Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarian philosophy, believed in maximizing overall happiness or utility as the highest principle of morality.
- ๐งฎ 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.
- ๐ฌ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ก Some critics of utilitarianism argue that it does not adequately respect individual or minority rights, potentially sacrificing them for the perceived greater good.
- ๐ค 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.
- ๐ข 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.
- ๐จ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ค The discussion includes various perspectives on utilitarianism, with some participants defending its practicality in decision-making and others expressing concerns about its ethical implications.
- ๐ 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
๐๏ธ 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.
๐ต 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.
๐ 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.
๐ค 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.
๐ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กUtilitarianism
๐กJeremy Bentham
๐กCannibalism Case
๐กCost-Benefit Analysis
๐กPhilip Morris
๐กFord Pinto Case
๐กValue of Life
๐กMinority Rights
๐กAggregating Utility
๐กThorndike's Study
๐กCommensurability
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]
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)