No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Kuciwalker]

AS: your idea of equality is inherently contradictory. If all lives are equal, but as a result of saving one life I also save several others, then I should prefer to save that one life (in this moment) to saving the life of someone who won't end up saving several others. You just can't get a coherent system that behaves the way you want.

If it bothers you, just imagine that the choice isn't between saving person A and person B, the choice is between saving (A and C and D and E and F) and saving B.

[Al B. Sure!]

Duh. Human beings have intrinsic moral value, but they also have instrumental value...

But where? Where is intrinsic value in the utility calculus? How is intrinsic value defined? How is it measured?

[KrazyHorse]

A man's inherent worth may be equal to that of all other men, while his instrumental value is much greater.

To take an example, machines have no inherent moral value, but if a machine costs a trillion dollars, most people would likely agree that destroying the machine was worse than letting a single person die. If a person has a trillion dollars of instrumental value, is there any real difference between choosing between him and somebody with no instrumental value?

[Al B. Sure!]

AS: your idea of equality is inherently contradictory. If all lives are equal, but as a result of saving one life I also save several others, then I should prefer to save that one life (in this moment) to saving the life of someone who won't end up saving several others. You just can't get a coherent system that behaves the way you want.

If it bothers you, just imagine that the choice isn't between saving person A and person B, the choice is between saving (A and C and D and E and F) and saving B.

No no no...

Saving lives isn't the issue at hand here. Yes, in that first example (not my own mind you. I think Gepap brought it up), it was about saving other people's lives. Note that I said positive utility... not lives... 2 people die would provide more positive utility to more people than 1 person dying so...

Of course, now this becomes an issue of how much in economic utility is a human life valued.... which goes right back to your discussion with Asher. Now, I ask you.

[KrazyHorse]

But where? Where is intrinsic value in the utility calculus? How is intrinsic value defined? How is it measured?

For the love of God, Kuci has already described one method for measuring intrinsic value; it is the premium that people are willing to accept in order to engage in dangerous jobs, divided by the excess probability of death due to engaging in that occupation.

In other words, it is the value that PEOPLE PLACE ON THEIR OWN LIVES...

[Al B. Sure!]

A man's inherent worth may be equal to that of all other men, while his instrumental value is much greater.

To take an example, machines have no inherent moral value, but if a machine costs a trillion dollars, most people would likely agree that destroying the machine was worse than letting a single person die.

What people would most likely agree to that?! Destroying a MACHINE is worse than having a HUMAN die?

This is the problem. You keep saying humans have intrinsic value... but where is it in the utility calculus? Surely, it is quantifiable!

[Al B. Sure!]

For the love of God, Kuci has already described one method for measuring intrinsic value; it is the premium that people are willing to accept in order to engage in dangerous jobs, divided by the excess probability of death due to engaging in that occupation.

In other words, it is the value that PEOPLE PLACE ON THEIR OWN LIVES...

Well damn that's very actuarial of him.

But also very subjective, probably estimated in the presence of overconfidence/informational asymmetry on the part of the person, and with wildly varying value judgments between people.

How does that work for a society worth of people?

[KrazyHorse]

What people would most likely agree to that?! Destroying a MACHINE is worse than having a HUMAN die?

If it's not true, then VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET IS ACTING EXTREMELY IMMORALLY

This is the problem. You keep saying humans have intrinsic value... but where is it in the utility calculus? Surely, it is quantifiable!

Kuci's already given a reasonable answer: 8 million dollars...

[Kuciwalker]

AS: the use of lives just simplifies the illustration of instrumental value. The only other component is the obvious fact that you have to have some exchange rate between lives and dollars - if you didn't, then either we would never spend money to save lives, or we would always spend all of our money to save lives.

(Really, this exposes the fact that we are willing to accept some number of deaths in order to get various luxuries - we're willing to accept car accidents in return for fast, easy travel, etc.)

Once you accept that there is some price to put on a life - and you have to accept that, because humans do it unconsciously all the time whenever they spend money on something other than saving lives - then it becomes clear that you can measure utility in dollars.

[Kuciwalker]

I believe the EPA's measurement is done by examining what kind of wage premium is necessary to convince people to work in dangerous professions over less dangerous professions (that require equivalent levels of skill/training/etc) and divide that by the difference in risk of death. It's not perfect, but it's reasonably clever and better than picking numbers out of your ass.

Note that this makes a key assumption that the intrinsic value of a life is equal to the value that the individual assigns to it.

edit: ok KH you win

[KrazyHorse]

At least give me a response to my very complimentary offer, Kuci.

:wiglaf:

[Al B. Sure!]

$8 million. I guess I'm the only one in present company to be bothered that Kuci has a dollar estimate of the worth of a human life.

But it really doesn't change anything. A human's intrinsic value is equivalent to $8 million... now how exactly is that different from instrumental value? The fact that you quantify it and put it in exchangeable terms means that it's implicitly an instrumental value because it's in relation to externalities.

[Kuciwalker]

At least give me a response to my very complimentary offer, Kuci.

:wiglaf:

Check your PMs.

[KrazyHorse]

I believe the EPA's measurement is done by examining what kind of wage premium is necessary to convince people to work in dangerous professions over less dangerous professions (that require equivalent levels of skill/training/etc) and divide that by the difference in risk of death. It's not perfect, but it's reasonably clever and better than picking numbers out of your ass.

For the love of God, Kuci has already described one method for measuring intrinsic value; it is the premium that people are willing to accept in order to engage in dangerous jobs, divided by the excess probability of death due to engaging in that occupation.

In other words, it is the value that PEOPLE PLACE ON THEIR OWN LIVES...

:wiglaf: :wiglaf: :****you:

[Kuciwalker]

$8 million. I guess I'm the only one in present company to be bothered that Kuci has a dollar estimate of the worth of a human life.

Not mine, the EPA's. I don't have nearly enough data to come up with an estimate.

But it really doesn't change anything. A human's intrinsic value is equivalent to $8 million... now how exactly is that different from instrumental value? The fact that you quantify it and put it in exchangeable terms means that it's implicitly an instrumental value because it's in relation to externalities.

This sentence is meaningless.