Not "value of life", but "value of A life". Or more precisely, value of a statistical life. It's an economic concept applied in cost-benefit analysis of such things as environmental policy, approval of new drugs, product safety, etc. It is common, for example, to weigh the cost of adding some safety device to a car against the expected reduction in risk of injury or death. If the expenditures required (by consumers, ultimately), all things considered, to reduce the expected number of highway deaths in a year by one person is, let's say, $1 million per annum, then in order to argue against using the device, one would have to consider the "value of a life" to be less than that $1 million. To argue for it, then, you are implicitly valuing a life at $1 million or more.
The problem, then, is what IS the "value of a life"? One can estimate it empirically based on routine choices people make every day, but often consumer safety advocates, environmental activists and such will reflexively lambast the analyst or economist who dares to do so (particularly if he or she is not taking their side on a given issue) and say, with a tone of shock and horror, something like "how can you value a human life!?!?!"
Anyway, your comment reminded me of this common debate between "cold, calculating, inhuman" economists and those who would prefer such issues are decided emotionally.
Of course, we aren't talking about any particular person's life, but rather a statistical one.
OK, back from the tangent. ;-) |
