Thursday, November 14, 2013
Utilitarianism (RJ Mathieu)
As hard as it is to say, everything, even life must have a price. If it did not, our market, economy, and basic order in society would crumble. Imagine there is a US soldier trapped in Serbia. He is wounded, and needs to be pulled out. However, he has been captured by Serbian troops. It is the basic human principle to rush in and save his life without thinking of the consequences, but someone needs to do it. To recapture him, many soldiers would get killed, and a lot of money would be lost in the equipment used. Therefore, lives were lost to save the lives of one injured. In a logically and economic sense, this is unjust. Of course, we cannot have hospitals refusing to treat patients because of the costs. therefore, there must be a price. It must be large enough to make sure emergency health forces continue to provide adequate care, but not so large as to bankrupt the government. I was thinking this number was somewhere between 3-4 million.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whose to say that the US forces wouldn't be able to rescue him without losing soldiers. You cannot be sure if the team would fail or succeed in rescuing the captured soldier. I personally think that the US forces would be able to save the soldier without losing many men. You also cannot put a price and that man. To you means something but not much, but to the family of that soldier he means a lot. There is no concrete value you can set on human lives. There are other ways to solve problems.
ReplyDeleteEven if the US does not lose soldiers(such a possibility is unlikely), we must also consider the soldiers that will be lost on the Serbian side. Do you believe that one American life is worth that of numerous Serbian lives? Regardless, the entire discussion is regarding utilitarianism, and not the possibility of success or failure. You also bring up the point that there can be no monetary value that can be placed upon human lives. To some degree, I agree with you, as the two subjects are unrelated. However, it would seem that you fail to realize the insignificance of a human life. Currently, there are 7 billion people who live in the world. We occupy one planet, out of billions, if not trillions. To the universe, we as a species have progressed little to none. Even if one man dies, there will be a minuscule effect on the universe. To the far greater majority of the 7 billion humans, their life will remain unaffected. The sadness of the family will be temporary, and once they die, more will replace them. Birth and death is a continuous cycle that has occurred for millions of years, and will continue for millions of years. Overall, that one death will have no impact on history. We must think of our future when arriving at situations. Going back to the hostage example, if we chose to engage in a military conflict with the Serbian, we have set the precedent of justifying a war with a single life. Think of the frivolous wars that we would be responsible for simply because we chose to save one life. The expense of millions for one.
DeleteI do think that human life must be preserved and that a life is more important than any amounts of money. I also believe that the examples being presented are not relevant to the topic of the discussion. When dealing with military affairs, it is expected for someone to be wounded, captured, or killed. People sign up for the military with knowledge that there are risks involved, and should have knowledge that their actions during battle are uncontrolled. This situation varies differently from the situations discussed. Many of the examples presented were controlled actions with knowledge of little risk. People who bought the Ford Pinto were not with knowledge of the dangers that the company presented them. The company knew about the dangers and could have controlled it or they could have told the truth and could not been held responsible. In this case both government and the soldier are aware of the risks. This would make any sense of capture just because neither could be held accountable since they both couldn't control it and knew about it. In the Ford Pinto case, blame can easily be pointed to the company because they knew about the risks while their buyers did not. The situations are incomparable because the soldier would have died due to honor while the driver would have died due to the injustice of others.
Delete