The Value of Statistical Lives - (the immorality of economics)

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the philosophy of economics and discussing the value of statistical lives.

Are All Lives Equal - Why Cost Benefit Analysis Values Rich Lives More and How Philosophy Can Fix It...

[PhilosophyVibe]

EDIT 4:01 Country A total population value should read "2 Billion"

[willyoctavianus]

but if you live as a poor, why would you spend even more money to continue living as a poor...

great video!

[zigurdag]

As an economist, I should say that this approach to cost-benefit analysis misses the actual application of value of statistical life. First, most of such analyses are hold within the country, and the Willingness to pay (WTP) helps to adjust for inflation and all those country-specific components. And even with within-country analyses, such calculations are only a small part of actual welfare analysis done to evaluate and implement the policy. We don’t treat these cost-benefit numbers as the decision rule as they are only an estimates. Actually, we have the whole utility theory where we can choose which society’s utility function to use: to value the poorest the most or all equal, or care about equality. It all depends on the policymaker’s objective. So, it’s not that simple and we are well aware of the imperfectness of WTP approach.
Second, when we evaluate multinational project, these value of life calculations are not that straightforward and we usually take universal measure for all countries, so that we value each life in every country the same. So, I think the problem you discuss is quite an exaggeration. But yeah, thank you for reminding us about the ethics, sometimes it’s important to see the other’s perspective.

[lordnavjot]

You are extremely underrated.I hope you achieve a lot of fame. -your loyal subscriber from India

[gabbarngh]

It's safe to say economics isn't a strong suit for these philosophers.

Economists don't really see the world as they posit and government rarely enact policies in such way.

[muhammadjamshaid]

Amazing video. Loved it. Your channel is really, really underrated and deserves a lot more.

[binkyandyc]

Thank you so much for your videos, don’t stop making them!!

[afihaileywibowo]

Hello, thank you for this video. I'm new to Philosophy and I must say it's overwhelming! Would you consider please to suggest list of videos where to start as a beginner? Thank you.

[robertobohrt]

This scenario assumes that the only way to finance healthcare is out-of-pocket payments. In contrast, everyone should pay taxes that are progressive: the more you earn, the more PERCENTAGE of your income you pay in taxes; and everyone should benefit according to his NEED. This calls for an efficient public health system that allocates an important chunk of its allocated funds to primary healthcare systems, helth promotion and the first level of care.

[tdillins]

Very interesting material. You guys should ask Freakinomics Radio about this. It would definitely be an interesting episode on a podcast.

[cinemanuggets]

I bought that book today. It's currently on a promotion. Yet to read it

[mpen]

Excellent thought provoking content as always 👍

[ronalddhs]

Terrible solution. At the end of the day this video explains the problem correctly, but then goes on and gives an oversimplify solution that would leave you in almost the exact same place.

[benjo]

The problematic aspects as presented seem to be grounded in a myopic viewpoint:

Let's take the disease example: Why do Americans have a greater ability to pay? Why have Americans more economc value? To whom?
We don't make economics up and the fact that Americans have much higher available income or wealth than Gambians isn't just make-believe. They tend to be more educated and more productive which generates use for others. Their worth doesn't exist in a vacuum. By choosing the Americans instead of the Gambians, you don't choose the Americans alone but the whole of humanity and the additional use, Americans bring to the table (which is what their value is all about) for all humankind.

Ask yourself (and this is exaggerated for illustrative purposes): "Would I rather save 20 starving deadbeats or one engineer who's able to feed a thousand through his innovations?". That's why the Americans are given a higher economic value or, rather, you measure their already existing economic value in dollars. Choosing the deadbeats is not about saving 19 additional people but about saving 1001 LESS!

Transferring this difference between more useful and more useless individuals to a global situation, you'll get the reason why it's prudent to save the Americans (the engineer) instead of the Gambians (the 20 deadbeats). Not for the Americans sake but for the whole of humanity (the 1000 other people who need to be considered as well). Not because they're richer for richness' sake alone.

[bahaamadi]

Im sorry this is too fallacious, read Austrian Economics

[taker]

Does the guy on the left need a cough drop?

[nuclearmayhem]

These statistics are nonsense, not much argument needed here. However you are completly ignoring the elephant in the room. Wheter or not utilitarianism is a good ethical framework in the first place. Infact VST is so god damn insignificant that i would argue you have lied by ommision as well as the motte and baily fallacy to argue in favor of utilitarianism. Most people understand that you should not nuclear waste on anyone no matter what utility function you are using. In adherance with my favored ethical framework, the non agression principle. The nuclear waste should be given over to anyone consenting to do so. Since certain death is a ridicilous scenario to begin with we can instead say that we will put the waste with the one who will take it off our hands the cheapest.

[erandeser]

So many holes in this bucket, it is hard to decide where to start. Just one: this all depends on a perfectly equal income distribution in each country. Economists can do the calculation, but economists do not decide where to dump the garbage. Economics is not immoral but amoral. Introducing value judgments into economics destroys the whole point of the science. The price tag shows the economics, but the choice depends on trade off values. The accountant is not running the business. Some alternative examples: the parking fine of 100USD is the same for all. You can rewrite the laws to make parking fines as a % of income and wealth. Or: 2 patients need an urgent operation. The hospital needs to choose between one with a big insurance policy and another one who has no means. How to choose ethically ? How will be chosen in reality ? Flip the coin z? That is just to escape responsibility.