Professor Evans,

Thanks for the useful comments.

Yes, obviously we cannot devote all of our resources to safety (life
would, in fact, be quite boring if we did so), but we can still treat
each life as being of infinite value by, as you say, not "pushing
consequentialism too far."

An analysis based purely on consequentialism might tell us, for example,
that scarce resources mean that certain steps that promote safety may not
be practical. An awareness of the inviolability of human life, however,
might lead us to social decisions that vary from those that might be
forthcoming under a purely managerial approach.

The issue of mandating seat-belt use illustrates the point. One US-based
study calculated the value to society of lives and injuries saved from
requiring seat belt use, and compared it to the costs of the inconvenience
of having to put on a seatbelt. The study found that the inconvenience was
greater than the value of the injuries/deaths averted.

An examination of such a finding with the assumption of an infinite value
of life tells us that it is nonsense. How could we doubt the value of
saving even one life from as much inconvenience as anyone could imagine
from requiring the use of seat belts?

Of course, this is a relatively simple example and one where public
resources are not involved. Yet, the principle works in all other cases,
too. In the case of the London Underground, we would have to stop all
operations to ensure nodoby was ever hurt or killed. That is, clearly,
silly. Yet, putting an infinite value on life is not incompatible with
continuing normal operations if one accepts the principle of Kantian
moral decision-making, rather than a cost-benefit methodology that puts
values on the unmeasurable (to a Kantian it is immoral to put a cash
value on a life, quite apart from the fact that any way in which
Economists derive such values is arbitrary and unscientific).

A Kantian would argue that the Underground is essential to the functioning
of the people of the city, yet would obey Kant's requirement that we never
treat a person as a means to an end, but only as an end itself. We can
value life as an end -- serving that end requires providing mobility so
that people can earn their keep, a need essential for the continuance of
humanity. Yet it also requires an attitude to risk reduction that keeps
us aware of the infinite value of life and draws decision-makers to
actions which are based on a fundamental respect for life rather than a
series of managerial calculations. There is likely to be a greater
inmclination to be vigilant about safety amongst those taking this
approach than amongst those who feel that the value of life can be
calculated and traded-off with other goals.

Thanks again.

                        --Jonathan!




On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Evans, Andrew W wrote:

> Dear Mr Litman and Dr Richmond,
>
> I have read your messages to UTSG.
>
> I hope that Mr Litman will decide not to go ahead with his press
> release. My concern about your paper is that you not distinguish between
> intentional and unintentional, or accidental, events. In the case of
> accidental events, past risks are a good guide to present risks, because
> events are independent, and fallible systems and humans change only
> slowly. However, that is not necessarily so with intentional events: we
> do not know whether the past is a good guide to the present. I also
> suggest that in simply equating intentional with accidental casualties,
> you are pushing consequentialism too far (judging events solely by their
> outcomes).
>
> On the other hand, Dr Richmond's wish that we should treat each human
> life as having infinite value is of no practical use for policy, because
> it implies that all of society's resources should be devoted to safety.
> All of us trade safety against other benefits in our everyday life, and
> so do all highway and transport authorities. Sometimes we all have to
> say No to safety measures, because there are better things to do with
> our time and money. And we take risks, such as travelling at all, in
> order to achieve benefits. As my colleague Richard Allsop said in a
> recent lecture, "Safety is for living, and living is more than just
> keeping safe".
>
> Andrew Evans
> Imperial College London
>

-----

Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office)
Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510
Urban Environmental Management program,
School of Environment, Resources and Development
Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home)
Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257
PO Box 4
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax)
Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509

e-mail: [log in to unmask] Secretary: Kuhn Vantana Pattanakul
        [log in to unmask] 02 524-6368
Intl: 662 524-6132
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/