No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Al B. Sure!]

What am I completely off base here and KH and Kuci don't think it worth their time to respond?

This is my problem. Let's say a particular human life is valued at $8 million. Now, in a slightly modified version of that original scenario, suppose this person is a vegetable or something and only possesses the intrinsic value and no instrumental value to society. If, by some scenario, this individual's death results, with no uncertainty, in $9 million of utility (defined by however), then, presumably, both of you would agree that the death of this person would be ethically correct, especially since KH said a machine can be more valuable than a human life.

My issue is that as soon as this situation is set up, you're making the value of the human life transferable (swapping the $8M life for the $9M in utility). Is inherent value transferable? How can it be? It seems to me that the moment that occurs, it can only be described as instrumental value as a human life was used/exchanged for a greater amount of utility.

Whether a human life starts out with inherent value does not change the fact that this utility calculus creates a situation in which human life is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

[DaShi]

This is my problem. Let's say a particular human life is valued at $8 million. Now, in a slightly modified version of that original scenario, suppose this person is a vegetable or something and only possesses the intrinsic value and no instrumental value to society. If, by some scenario, this individual's death results, with no uncertainty, in $9 million of utility (defined by however), then, presumably, both of you would agree that the death of this person would be ethically correct, especially since KH said a machine can be more valuable than a human life.

My issue is that as soon as this situation is set up, you're making the value of the human life transferable (swapping the $8M life for the $9M in utility). Is inherent value transferable? How can it be? It seems to me that the moment that occurs, it can only be described as instrumental value as a human life was used/exchanged for a greater amount of utility.

Whether a human life starts out with inherent value does not change the fact that this utility calculus creates a situation in which human life is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

[MOBIUS]

If only todays schools of finance would teach its students about morals and ethics or at least have them pay lip service to some sort of oath.

Funnily enough, there is now the MBA Oath started by Harvard that appears to be going viral.

[giblets]

My issue is that as soon as this situation is set up, you're making the value of the human life transferable (swapping the $8M life for the $9M in utility). Is inherent value transferable? How can it be? It seems to me that the moment that occurs, it can only be described as instrumental value as a human life was used/exchanged for a greater amount of utility.

Whether a human life starts out with inherent value does not change the fact that this utility calculus creates a situation in which human life is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Uhh, what? If you let a human die, under these assumptions, then $8 million is lost, not transferred. It's the opportunity cost of freeing up resources.

[Proteus_MST]

He's making a very valid point, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

We keep old people alive even when they are net drains on society because it's the right thing to do, not because it economically makes sense.

The "incentive" argument is pretty stupid -- what choice do people have? You work, or you die...with or without the possibility of retirement.

One example where the incentive argument definitely isn' t valid would be people with mental retardations that keep them from ever being a productive member of the human society.

For example people with Trisomy 21. They aren´t productive members of the human population and take up resources for their special care and their heightened medical needs that surely could be better used elsewhere (i.e. for productive members of the human population). So, from an economic standpoint, does it make sense to let them live? I think not.

[Al B. Sure!]

Uhh, what? If you let a human die, under these assumptions, then $8 million is lost, not transferred. It's the opportunity cost of freeing up resources.

That doesn't change the fact that it immediately turns the human life into something with only instrumental value.

[Al B. Sure!]

This is my problem. Let's say a particular human life is valued at $8 million. Now, in a slightly modified version of that original scenario, suppose this person is a vegetable or something and only possesses the intrinsic value and no instrumental value to society. If, by some scenario, this individual's death results, with no uncertainty, in $9 million of utility (defined by however), then, presumably, both of you would agree that the death of this person would be ethically correct, especially since KH said a machine can be more valuable than a human life.

My issue is that as soon as this situation is set up, you're making the value of the human life transferable (swapping the $8M life for the $9M in utility). Is inherent value transferable? How can it be? It seems to me that the moment that occurs, it can only be described as instrumental value as a human life was used/exchanged for a greater amount of utility.

Whether a human life starts out with inherent value does not change the fact that this utility calculus creates a situation in which human life is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

What the hell?

[giblets]

That doesn't change the fact that it immediately turns the human life into something with only instrumental value.

Intrinsic value is by definition not instrumental, stop twisting words. If we devote resources to keeping someone alive because we think their intrinsic value makes it worthwhile, then the resources are the means and they are the end.

[giblets]

What the hell?

I guess he wanted everyone to see it.