3 ms·
The problem with that black and white reasoning is that on some level "the market" represents people's livelihoods and eventually there comes a point where it's
by dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The problem with that black and white reasoning is that on some level "the market" represents people's livelihoods and eventually there comes a point where it's reasonable to say "X people should die to prevent Y amount of hardship for Z people".
- steveeq1 7y agoI agree. It's easy to fall in the trap of "human life above all else", but there comes a time where tradeoffs become reasonable. Society already does this with the automobile. 36,000 people die every year for the convenience of driving, which I feel is a completely reasonable tradeoff, and this is not a controversy, at least in the united states.
- bigbob2 7y agoThat seems to only include the accident mortality rate. It would likely be even higher if you included deaths from automobile air pollution. Unrelated but curious, why do you feel it's a completely reasonable tradeoff? In my mind, automobiles have led to a class (and historically race) divide which further segregates and polarizes sects of society.
- steveeq1 7y agoI seriously doubt cars cause a "racial divide" in any reasonable way. As for whether I think it's a "reasonable tradeoff". I don't know, but maybe because it's not brought up as controversial by society. This is not a good reason, I suppose, but I haven't really thought about it. I guess I'm mindlessly mimicing the ethics of people around me.