4 ms·

I think rewording this from "value" to "how much can we afford to spend to save a life" would be interesting. It sounds less capitalist-y and more naturalistic

I think rewording this from "value" to "how much can we afford to spend to save a life" would be interesting. It sounds less capitalist-y and more naturalistic and grounded. On the actual value itself, it would be interesting to see a report of the actual metrics that different industries and entities use to calculate that value. I'd expect it would be very varied.

taneq 3y ago
Agreed, and the effects of this kind of positive vs. negative phrasing us one of the fascinating things to examine using tools like the trolley problem. Speaking of which, I believe the trolley equivalent of this rephrasing would be one track, one person tied to the track, one freight trolley with no passengers but with a total dollar value of $x, and one lever which will derail the freight trolley destroying it and cargo entirely. What value of $x would be worth pulling the lever?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Sacrificing one life for money? Easy, derail the trolley regardless of cargo. Anyway, as philosophical or moral problem, the trolley question just sucks.
  - taneq 3y ago
    That's literally the point of the trolley problem. "You can't put a dollar value on human life, or compare the value of different human lives" is the socially accepted 'correct' answer. It's also a polite fiction, and using a mental tool like the trolley problem you can uncover what you and others actually think.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Reminds me of a scenario that I was asked once in an assessment center (a military one): Ypu are defending a bridge, the last one across the river, the enmy is approaching, refugees are on tje bridge, the enemy crossing would mean the front collapses. What do you do, let the enemy cross or blow the bridge? My, partially smart ass answer: retreat, let tze enemy and refugees cross. Because I don't see a point in killong non-combatants to, maybe, save a situation that was screwed up months ago. Because why am I, without enough forces to hold the bridge, the last obstacle for the enemy before he breaks through? And even if I blew the bridge, I don't take out the enemies engineers, so they will just cross the river elsewhere. Since I didn't fail the assessment, the answer at least wasn't completely wrong I think.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Eh, the formulation you've proposed doesn't really give people much reason not to derail the train. The moment you start saying "10 million dollars of cargo" people will naturally picture a container full of ipads owned by some trillion-dollar megacorp that won't feel the loss at all, and derail the train.
- harimau777 3y ago
  I think I might also need some idea of the degree to which the contents of the trolley can be replaced and what will happen if we lose those resources. Does it contain diamonds that are valuable but useless or a limited supply of life saving medicine? It would also be relevant to know who will bear the cost of losing the trolley. Is it society as a whole or some capitalist?
einsum 3y ago
In the wikipedia article they suggest “micromort”: the amount someone would be willing to pay to reduce a one in one million risk of death.
stared 3y ago
On the contrary, I think "value of life" is an important phrasing - especially given that it is extremely uneasy for anyone except some die-hard libertarians. Otherwise, we live with a dissonance - on the one hand, we consider life priceless; on the other, we often spend a very limited amount of money to save it. We switch back and forth between these two modes of thinking, making it unable to form a rational policy.
- supertrope 3y ago
  Everything has either a dignity or a price. If it has a dignity no amount of money is worth it. If it has a price it’s just a business transaction. It’s much easier to declare something is priceless and above market forces when you accrue the benefits and don’t bear the costs of maintaining it.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Another way to think about it is in terms of labor. 7.5 million is about 125 years of labor at the US average pay. It is amazing society will pay this, and it came up more often, we simply couldn't.

taneq 3y ago

Agreed, and the effects of this kind of positive vs. negative phrasing us one of the fascinating things to examine using tools like the trolley problem. Speaking of which, I believe the trolley equivalent of this rephrasing would be one track, one person tied to the track, one freight trolley with no passengers but with a total dollar value of $x, and one lever which will derail the freight trolley destroying it and cargo entirely. What value of $x would be worth pulling the lever?

hef19898 3y ago
Sacrificing one life for money? Easy, derail the trolley regardless of cargo. Anyway, as philosophical or moral problem, the trolley question just sucks.
- taneq 3y ago
  That's literally the point of the trolley problem. "You can't put a dollar value on human life, or compare the value of different human lives" is the socially accepted 'correct' answer. It's also a polite fiction, and using a mental tool like the trolley problem you can uncover what you and others actually think.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Reminds me of a scenario that I was asked once in an assessment center (a military one): Ypu are defending a bridge, the last one across the river, the enmy is approaching, refugees are on tje bridge, the enemy crossing would mean the front collapses. What do you do, let the enemy cross or blow the bridge? My, partially smart ass answer: retreat, let tze enemy and refugees cross. Because I don't see a point in killong non-combatants to, maybe, save a situation that was screwed up months ago. Because why am I, without enough forces to hold the bridge, the last obstacle for the enemy before he breaks through? And even if I blew the bridge, I don't take out the enemies engineers, so they will just cross the river elsewhere. Since I didn't fail the assessment, the answer at least wasn't completely wrong I think.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Eh, the formulation you've proposed doesn't really give people much reason not to derail the train. The moment you start saying "10 million dollars of cargo" people will naturally picture a container full of ipads owned by some trillion-dollar megacorp that won't feel the loss at all, and derail the train.
harimau777 3y ago
I think I might also need some idea of the degree to which the contents of the trolley can be replaced and what will happen if we lose those resources. Does it contain diamonds that are valuable but useless or a limited supply of life saving medicine? It would also be relevant to know who will bear the cost of losing the trolley. Is it society as a whole or some capitalist?

einsum 3y ago

In the wikipedia article they suggest “micromort”: the amount someone would be willing to pay to reduce a one in one million risk of death.

stared 3y ago

On the contrary, I think "value of life" is an important phrasing - especially given that it is extremely uneasy for anyone except some die-hard libertarians. Otherwise, we live with a dissonance - on the one hand, we consider life priceless; on the other, we often spend a very limited amount of money to save it. We switch back and forth between these two modes of thinking, making it unable to form a rational policy.

supertrope 3y ago
Everything has either a dignity or a price. If it has a dignity no amount of money is worth it. If it has a price it’s just a business transaction. It’s much easier to declare something is priceless and above market forces when you accrue the benefits and don’t bear the costs of maintaining it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Another way to think about it is in terms of labor. 7.5 million is about 125 years of labor at the US average pay. It is amazing society will pay this, and it came up more often, we simply couldn't.