Blood for money

Post Reply New Topic

Do human lives have a dollar value? In the idealistic abstract it is certain that they don't however, when it comes to what happens in reality and in open systems that involve money vs human lives then the human life does seem to be worth some amount of money and is not above money.

To demonstrate the reality part let us just look at the thousand and millions of people dying of preventable diseases. If we spent all of the money we could curing these people then that would hurt our economy causing more pain in the long run because it can be seen that economic growth causes longer, happier lives and less death because most deaths are for economic reasons to some extent. Also, in the real world people will put a limit on the amount that they would spend to save a life.

Let us also look at the hypothetical example. Let us say that a person offers you a million dollars to kill a baby: if you do it then that would be murder(lets just say you wouldn't get caught) however you could spend that money saving hundreds of other children and thus make the world a much better place because now we have less children who are suffering/dying and you have probably saved a net amount of 999 lives or something. If you don't kill the baby then you could be considered partially responsible for what you didn't do after all, if I stand there watching a person drown in quicksand when I could easily help them then I am partially responsible for his death, so by letting the child live I could be seen as responsible for killing -1000 lives (the baby you didn't kill does not become part of your saved children pile). Is it better to let a thousand lives die in that last example just because you felt that it would be best to save the one? I know that it seems odd to think about it is just that I tend towards utilitarian ethics because it seems that ethics are meant to be practical decisions to help the most people however, examples like this seem to be offering 2 different evil options; there is murdering the child and then there is letting the 1000 other children die. I dunno, it just seems that standard ethics does not satisfy because it is not better to let thousands die for the rights of 1 person but then again there are unsatisfactory things to this idea too. Oh, I added a poll for no reason.

I'd make some calculations and predict how many people would be killed due to disease X over the course of Z years(the amount of time theoretically that the disease would take to cure without killing people), and the cost of that. And compare it to the value of Y number of people i'm gonna kill, if it is cheaper to kill any number of people than it would be to wait out the cure through non killing i would do it. Personally if need be.

But that is only if i'm trying to help the world. I'm just going to assume that is what i'm doing. Because i would find it fun being the guy to make those kinds of decisions, infact i have a story planned about a doctor who has exactly that dilemma.

On the other hand if i wouldnt get caught i'd kill a baby for a large sum of money. But i'm talking about nobody knows, not just im legally immune. Whether i would kill the baby depends on how much money it was and how likely it was that i was going to get caught. If you guarentee i CANT get caught, i'd kill the baby for like 500 bucks. A messy, noisy job like that, i'd be willing to go 500 dollars a baby, but i want job security, meaning equal likely hood(none) of getting caught, but like 50 babies. The less job security, the less i'd be willing to. I'm not into manual labor personally, im very lazy, thats why my cost is so high.

It is not that i think a baby is physically worth more than a dollar, it is that all the kids whinning and the blood, and other fluids, and the clean up!? that is way too much labor for a buck.

If i had instead like a desk job where all i had to do was press a button in a quiet, dry office, and each time i press the button i get a dollar and kill a baby, then no problem, i'd whail on that button for 10 hours a day, a job well done. But once again, job security is important(but not as important in this case) and not getting caught is essential.

well really, IMHO, I feel that not enough is done by drug companies to CURE as there is done to TREAT. After all, if I cure you, you dont need my services anymore. But if I keep you going so long as you have my magic pill, then you will HAVE to return.

THAT isnt ethical. But it IS shrude business. Cars are engineered in the same fashion (my dad is in the automotive business so I have some background here) If they "last forever", and if the parts are "cheap" then you wont get a new one unless it is damaged beyond repair. But If you have to get the parts from the dealer, and it can only be maintanced at the dealer, then they have a monoloply. You have to go back. But all this has to ride that fine line between what is preceeved as normal for something to break and a piece of junk. If the general population expects some parts to break, go bad, need replacing more, etc then they wont precieve that car to be a piece of junk. On the other hand, if it breaks more than it should, then they will go to another auto maker next time.

I think most of the things we buy as consumers are like that. They are not generally designed to last forever (not that they accually could) they are designed to wear, break and need replacing. That keeps the consumer comming back again and again.
Wal-mart's business ethics and the way they are set up create this by default:

lets say I own a clothing factory here in the US. I make a specific style of jeans that are very durable and well made. I use only us made materials and us work, and my product sells for 20.00 more than the overseas version. My product, "XYZ jeans" gains a reputaion for being the best, and is bought for that reason. My market is mostly malls and select independanly owned shops. My customers go into these stores to get my product and they often spend more on other things as they shop. The store owners like this, and continue to stock "XYZ". Now, either Im approched by the giant chain to sell my product with them (not as likely as the next option) or I decide, being a good business person and wanting to expand my operations, I approch the giant chain store with my product and want to sell there. They agree and we sign a contract for Q# of my jeans. They sell for the same as in the other stores, at first. Then after they dont sell as well at the giant chain, or customers gripe that they are overpriced, or they DO sell well the giant chain's people call me in for a meeting. They tell me they WANT to sell my product, and they want twice last years quantity, but, they want it at just a few dollars over my cost to make them. If I agree, my independant stores are going to be hurt, if I refuse, I stand the chance of loosing thousands in profit and having to lay off US workers in my small town operation. So, like many of these manufactuers, I decide to "sell for less". My profits are down and I end up having to cut a few jobs, and benifits and maybe cut corners. I might begin to make jeans of lesser quality to meet the demands, or I might have to create a lesser quality line just for this store. And inorder to stay profitable, I have to decide to use cheaper goods from overseas. Eventually, as more people buy my "so-so" line of "XYZ jeans" they dont like the quality or they really like the price (which is way lower than my speciality stores) and stop going to my speciality and independant dealers because they think all the work is going to be shoddy or they dont want to spend 20.00 more for what they think is the same product. My independant dealers quit carrying my product (because they close up or they need room for another product that sells, or they just plain get ticked). So then Im left at the end of the year with only giant chain to sell to. So they make their move. They DEMAND I sell for 5 dollars less than last year, which would put me out of business, or they refuse to sell my product anymore. So I move the operation overseas to cut costs. After all, I can get the same product made for less than half the cost as here, and I dont have to worry about benifits, labor laws, or that pesky minimum wage we have that is 10times that of my off-shore factories. So I lay off my workers, and move to mexico, or china, or where ever and continue to profit as I sell inferior products at rock bottom prices. Oh and my layed off factory workers? they go to work FOR giant chain for minimum wage and wind up on welfare and food stamps because 5.75 an hour isnt cutting it. So my taxes go up to cover it. All the while other companies are going through the same thing, and giant chain continues to profit.
But wait you say. I cant afford your 50.00 designer jeans anyhow. Well those original "XYZ" jeans were made very well and they lasted much longer than the 20.00 version that they are selling at giant chain. I have to buy 3 of the "giant chain" versions of my jeans to get the same wear time out of them as I would one of my original pair. So I end up spending more anyway on the product in the end. but i dont notice it because I just toss that pair of jeans in my buggy while Im shopping for groceries. Oh and because that pair was so lousy, I had to make special trip to get another pair and wound up buying more, after all there was this great sale on gallon jar pickles....

This EXACT thing has played out and the Snapper company told wal-mart "no!". They stopped selling their mowers there. One of the bycicle companies, I for get which, didnt, and had to sell AT cost and even use a competitor to make the bikes for Wal-mart's demands. It was that, or loose their place to sell there all together.

Yea, lets talk about ethics.

To me the question is this:

Is it OK to take a positive action (in the sense of actively doing it) of taking one persons life on the chance that by doing so, one could gain the means to possibly prevent a thousand other people from dying, although it is by no means certain that all of them would die or that all their deaths could be prevented?

I think someone who would be corrupt enough to kill a baby for money sure as hell isn't going to value life enough to spend that money saving other people.

Wow! I am actually getting really cool/good responses even to a question as odd as the one I present.

Anyway, to Chamoisee, you are right, most babykillers wouldn't give money to charity. However, assuming that you were a baby killer that did, would that make you a good person? You destroy innocent lives but end up helping more in the process. It is just one of those odd questions that pits the idea of utilitarianism vs other forms of ethics because according to utilitarian ethics the ideal is to help the most people. Killing babies to donate the profits is morally just in the eyes of a utilitarian but killing babies is so evil according to some that it could never be justified. Does the end result (a given in this situation) really justify the means (killing a sweet innocent little baby for money)?

I don't think it matter if the person being killed is an adult or a baby, cute or homely, a life is a life. The only way I can see that it would be justifiable is if the person being killed is actively and irreperably endangering the lives of the other 999 people. For example, if you see a person just about to step on a landmine in a crowded area and there is no time to prevent them from doing so othan than shooting them. If a murderer is running rampant, can't be caught, and is going to kill more people, I don't think itd be wrong to take them out.

I mean, the thing is, you don't *have* to kill the baby in order to raise the money to help other people. There are other ways to raise money.

True, you can raise money in different ways however if you take the baby money now you can still use those other methods and help even more. I mean, there are millions upon millions of needy people in the world. Killing the baby for money would be only a drop in the bucket, same as any other fund-raiser you might do. Because the goal is to help as many people as possible you still have the same decision of whether you want to save those lives by killing the baby or not, simply because there will always be lives that need saving. Pretty much given the limits of the situation saving the extra 999 people is something that can only be done by killing the baby because the money outside of that is separate and for this hypothetical situation can be considered both constant and small enough that it still leaves you with poor people who need money, money that could only be gotten from baby killing, to help them not die of some form of disease or starvation or something of that effect.

this "ethical" quandry is best put in terms of battle:
If you see this kid walking up to your platoon of say 30 people and you know that the kid has a gernade, do you shoot him?
If you do, you just killed a civilian (though armed and hell-bent on blowing you up), and a child at that.
If you dont, then most of your platoon is going home in a black plastic bag and the rest are going to be maimed and scared for the rest of their lives.

I know what I would do in that situation.

its like on a fire where there is a person trapped. We throw all other rules (two in two out, etc) to the wind and go into an all out effort to rescue a viable victim. If that person might have a chance, and we might be able to find them we go to it and with all resources. remember the pre 9-11 deaths of 6FF in Worchester? The were doing just that when a structural collapse trapped them, and thus caused their demise. But If we roll up on a 100% involved structure we dont put the lives of the responders in any further danger to recover a body, and that is exactly what that would be.
If I rolled up on a 2 story single family dwelling and it was fully involved with entrapments would I risk my crew. No. But same structure with entrapments and its say only 75% involved, you bet we're going in. Same if we "have reason to believe" there are occupants inside. I have done that. but Im not sending my crew in on a lost cause, that goes for proptery and lives.

A couple years back in a neighboring fire distirct a small GA (general avaition) crashed just off the R/W (run way) of a small business airport. The plane had 3 SOBs (souls on board) and was fueled with AvGas (more volitle than jet fuel). the fire personnell had to make a decision: save the 8yr old boy or save his grandfather. The grandfather told them to take the boy first as the plane was on fire and he was looking out for the child. They did, and the grandfather died. I dont recall if the other passenger dies or was already out, but there again an ethical decistion. Who to save? they couldnt get both. It was so very tragic.

Another ethical decision made by responders every day: you run a call say a heart attack or stroke or major trama and you know that there's about no chance that person is going to survive and if they do that they will ever be more than a veggie. You are obligated to preform as much as your training allows before a DR calls and tells you otherwise. You KNOW whats going to happen because you've seen this play out a thousand times. But you make all attempts and the person has no quality of life because you "did your job".

Wait theres more, You are expecting your third child. The pregancy is very complicated and they tell you that some dire condition has manafested before the baby can survive out of the womb and to save your life you have to terminate the pregenancy. Do you do this, or do you carry the child knowing that she and her two siblings are going to be with out a mother. hummmmmm.... what a quandry.

Ethics is such a touchy subject. Danged if you do and danged if you dont.

I think making a ethical decision sometimes means the greater good overall. are 20 lives worth one? Is one life worth 20?

The most ethical action would be killing yourself to save the lives of many others.
The highest sacrifice.

I would prefer killing a baby to a human, less blood and easier.

Many a congressional metal of honor was given to widows....