4 ms·
Almost anybody can dig ditches but fewer specially trained people can do surgery. Leaving aside remuneration and social status, when optimizing the use of your
by xtho 17y ago
Almost anybody can dig ditches but fewer specially trained people can do surgery. Leaving aside remuneration and social status, when optimizing the use of your resources, you'd let people with that training to the surgery in order to achieve your goals in the most efficient way. So one could say that he actually cared about optimal use of human capital in order to best (= in cheapest way possible) achieve the goal. If you take the problem to that level, do you still care about the means or the ends?
- 10ren 17y agoGood point, thanks, I was thinking I should have addressed that. The thing was that no one was digging ditches. Yes, given a choice, it would be more efficient to use unskilled labour than a surgeon... but it would be better to have a surgeon doing it than having no one doing it. In practice, I imagine his role as an advocate and organizer: a kind of charity-entrepreneur, and maybe leading by example, gandhi-style, rather than being an ordinary ditch digger. "This is so important, that I can save more lives by doing it instead of doing surgery". Of course, there are many problems with making infrastructure changes, cultural, practical, political; and maybe it needs special talents, skills, values and especially personality that even a highly intelligent, competent and committed surgeon may lack. But if you believe that's the best way to improve health, and you are committed to improving health, then...