CSJ Putting a Price Tag on Life by Michael Sandel Video Discussion

?? write what do you think about their writing. don’t use he/she

1.

After watching the video lecture by Michael Sandel a few times, following are the three concepts that I learned:

• Corporations are more concerned about profits than they are aboutthe value of human life. This is demonstrated by the cost benefitanalysis that was presented and conducted by Phillip Morris and Ford.Phillip Morris off set the illnesses brought on by smoking with benefitsthat the government received in taxes, Health care savings (assumingMedicare) due to early deaths, and not having to pay out long termpensions. The government savings is just over $1,200 per person frompremature deaths. Ford decided not to add a $11.00 item to save liveswhen the car was re-ended causing the car to explode. The cost to put itin all the cars was more than the cost to pay out claims. They valued ahuman life at $200,000.
• When cost benefit analysis is completed, it requires a dollar amountto be put on a human life to determine if cutting costs to make aproduct safer would cost more than it would cost to pay out a settlementwhen the product creates injury. This is where the utilitarianism comesinto play. If it benefits the majority, then its ok (I do not think itis) to cut corners to save money. Even if it causes loss of human life.
• When Sandel showed three video clips that consisted of Shakespeare,Fear Factor, and The Simpsons, he followed up with asking which oneprovided a higher pleasure. This was part of Mills Theory. The outcomeis based on a person’s education. The higher pleasures require educationand cultivation.

All of this bases putting a price tag on human life. The argument is:How do you calculate the worth of a person or group of people likePhillip Morris and Ford did in their cost benefit analysis. If themajority of the people are “Ok” with the issue, is it still right tomove forward with something that will cause injury and/or death to theminority?

For me, this ties back to the Week 2 Discussion Board that was basedon ethics. Just because a cost benefit analysis reflect a cost saving inthe long run, is it ethically and morally right to let some people dieto save money while the majority many not be affected at all?

Best regards

James

References

Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: “PUTTING A PRICETAG ON LIFE” | Michael Sandel | YouTube.Com [Video file]. (2009,September 8). Retrieved from

2.

I think that cost benefit analysis (CBA) cannot always find thegreater good of the mass, especially when dealing with the human life.However, I do agree with Raul when he says that companies have to apply aCBA because if they don’t they could potentially go out of business andmany individuals could lose their jobs and it would impact theirpersonal life.

The second concept that I thought was interesting and agree with isthat when Michael Sandel says “the things we value and cherish can’t becaptured according to a single uniform measure of value”. This isinteresting because it can always be challenged or different from eachones perspective. This i believe is why it is hard to be autilitarianism in every situation.

The second half of the video where they were discussing about beingtold something is great so we agree that he is great. This concerns meas I believe that this is how majority of take things and repeat thingsand there a lot of us who do not think on our own to decide these thingsbased off of our own thoughts.

Lastly, the concept of in the long run interest of human kind, if wedo justice and respect rights, that society in a whole will be better inthe long run. I do agree with this, even if at times its not the bestfor a smaller group. I think this circles back to the examples hementioned early off about the pinto and smoking. There are sides you canargue and agree with that fits your agenda and perspective.

3.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

One of the topics discussed by Sandel was the cost/benefit analysisthat companies and governments weigh when deciding what’s best for thesum of the individuals. The Phillip Morris cost/benefit analysis forBosnia and the students responses when putting a monetary value on humanlife was interesting and a little saddening also. A few of the studentsspoke about that you have to have a number when regarding human life.It got me thinking about the United States and other countriesgovernment response to Covid-19. I’m assuming that when having to havethe discussions and make the decisions whether to shut down the economyto help prevent the spread of an infectious disease, that there must be acost/benefit analysis performed. Shutting down the economy could leadto a lot of long-term problems if companies cannot recover from theshutdown. Also, you don’t want people to go about their day-to-daylifestyles interacting and spreading the virus. Makes me wonder if acost/benefit analysis was performed and what (if any) value did theyplace on human life.

Individual Rights versus The Great Good

Sandel spoke about the rights of the individual versus what theoutcome of a situation that would result in the great good. He used theexample of 9/11 and if a terrorist was captured, then would torture beacceptable to stop such a cataclysmic event. In my opinion, I believethat individual gave up his human rights when he and others decided totake that course of action. The action was completely hostile andresulted in the loss of almost 3,000 people. If the government was ableto apprehend one of the terrorists, then I think that torture would havebeen a tolerable action for the greater good to save those people.

Pleasurable activities

Out of the entire discussion, I think I enjoyed this topic the most.The topic of what pleasurable activities are better or worthier thanothers. I believe that it is up to the individual to decide what theyconsider to be enjoyment. I can’t watch that Kardashian show but theywere on for how many seasons? I do agree with the statement that “highereducation and cultivation is required to appreciate higher pleasure andtend to prefer higher than lower.” Taking part of higher and lowerpleasure experiences is truly the only way that one can determine ifthey’ll like it or not. I believe that only makes you a morewell-rounded individual when you try something that’s outside of yourcomfort zone. I feel like the older people get, the more within theirown set boundaries they stay. As children, we’re not even told to tryeverything. We just do it and figure out what’s good and what isn’t. Ithink that people could learn from that and try out new things and havenew experiences. You never know what you like and don’t until you try itout and make a decision from there.