PH222: How should the government incorporate the value of

human life into health & safety policy?

Plan:
How: using CBA, but while being aware of its shortcomings, and
mindful of principles which override all other cost and benefit
considerations. Incorporate the idea of responsibility and avoidable
deaths.
1. Definitions:
a. CBA: a systematic process for calculating and comparing
benefits and costs of a project/policy. Predicts whether a
projects benefits outweigh its costs, and by how much
relative to other projects. Indentifies choices that can
increase welfare from an utilitarian perspective.
b. Utilitarianism: moral principle that the right course of
action is one that maximises overall happiness. In
particular: consequentialism (whether an action is right
depends on its consequences).
2. Ethical problems with putting a monetary value on human life:
utilitarianism foundation makes it an unsatisfactory moral
system to adapt.
a. Utilitarianism insufficient a moral view: cost and benefits
should not govern moral judgment. If we accept
utilitarianism as our guiding principle, then lying and
cheating are encouraged. I agree with this view.
However, will show later that these problems become
irrelevant in the practical field.
b. Monetisation of human life not acceptable:
i. Monetisation decreases the perceived value
of human life: putting a number on it is
demeaning. Much of perceived value of a life
comes from the fact that it cannot be bought with
money monetising it implies it CAN be bought
loses value. AGREE with this, however CBAs
purpose is not to specifically value a human life.
ii. Different people may value their life differently:
some are exceptional risk takers, some are
suicidal.
iii.
3. Justification for putting monetary value on human life
POSSIBLE to use CBA to make informed decision. KEY: a
statistical life is not the same as an actual life, it is about
reducing a small risk for a great number of people.
a. Rationality (breaking down cost of safety measure over
the number of lives saved to decide whether it is worth
paying for. On what ground other than financial can we
RATIONALLY make a decision?) Accountability.

b. Statistical life Means to compare: 1.4million

represents not value of life but the limit to which the
government is willing to commit resources to reduce a
certain risk (which could be small but spread over large
number of people).. There is distinction between saving
a life and reducing a small risk for a great number of
people. Even if there is only one person potentially
saved according to statistics, any number of people are
potentially saved, because the risk has been removed.
c. We use money to pay for safety normal to put a
price on safety. Made clear the distinction between
valuing an actual life, and valuing safety in the form of a
statistical life monetisation not morally wrong. Where
valuation deviates from true value: problem of
technique, not principles. Job of CBAnalysts to be better
at quantifying
d. Treatises on CBA makes clear that certain ethical or
political principles may irreversibly dominate the
advantages/disadvantages capturable by CBA.
Since benefits and costs are usually enjoyed/incurred by
different people, a DISTRIBUTIONAL judgment has to be
made
e.
4. But SHOULD we use CBA for ALL cases? Not apply to all cases,
though not surprising. Introduce additional approach:
absolutism.
Alternative approach: absolutism: one avoidable death is too
many. Make clear from the start that they are not opposing
schools but are internal.
Where does absolutism arise? We still advocate the use of CBA
but when a death is extremely AVOIDABLE (boils down to one
single cause: someone who would bear the cost), absolutism
wins.
a. In perfect world absolutism should always be used.
b. Justification: With limited resources:
i. Blameworthiness:
ii. Size of C-B discrepancy:
iii. Saving one statistical life also means reducing risk
for everyone. Everyone benefits.
Absolutism may be more attractive in cases where it
seems immoral to not implement regulation, but it
should not be the primary tool.

Reasons FOR CBA/against Kelman

Delong
Zero risk level is not the only acceptable one. In reality
resources are limited, our aim is to minimise risk subject to
budget constraint.
Kelman: when two entitlements collide, decision depends
upon moral importance we attach to right/duty involved.
Conflicts between interests present difficult choices, but a
quantitative approach is hardly irrelevant to making them.
Absurd to disregard relative costs and benefits altogether and
abide by some abstract idea of moral importance.
There are many things of special values which are nonetheless
affected by economic factors Kelmans idea that
monetisation contaminates value is silly even in the realm of
personal decision making. In the realm of government
decision making, it becomes impossible, who is to decide
whose special value is more important?? Political
polarisation, war.
Kelmans position calls for nonresponsibility for consequences,
because consequences are not rationally calculated out as
under CBA.
Solow defends CBA as a principle

CBA only needed when society must give up one good thing in
order to get more of another good thing. Agree that there are
cases in which peoples willingness to sacrifice may be badly
measured by the sum of individuals WTS in completely
private context, but that is at worst an error of technique and
not a mistaken principle.
Treatises on CBA makes clear that certain ethical or political
principles may irreversibly dominate the
advantages/disadvantages capturable by CBA. Since benefits
and costs are usually enjoyed/incurred by different people, a
DISTRIBUTIONAL judgment has to be made
Kelmans point on WTP and WTA is not exactly a discovery
(CV, EV)

Butters

Kelman supports his argument with examples most of which

involve private decisions. CBA is not means to judge private
decisions. It is a guide for making decisions involving others,
designed not to dictate individual values, but to take them
into account when decisions must be made collectively. (govt
must act as agent of citizens)
Purpose of CBA is to make costs and benefits explicit so that
decision maker can make the trade-offs consciously and with
the prospect of being accountable. If costs and benefits are

not weighed, decision maker could not be held accountable

because he does not know what could potentially happen. CBA
is about rationality and consistency (consistent standards)
CBA is highly imperfect BUT:
o Alternative (kelman): balancing between certain duties
and rights according to deliberate reflection. But who is
to do the reflecting?
o Problem: Highly unlikely that there is a certain moral
standard that EVERY regulator will arrive at through
deliberation. More likely: bureaucratic decisions
reflecting preferences of the policy makers, not the
citizens involved. Result: authoritarianism.