Additional funding provided by

last time we argued about

the case of the Queen verses Dudley and Stephens

the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea

and with the arguments about

the lifeboat

in mind the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,

let's turn back to the

philosophy

the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham

Bentham was born in England in 1748, at the age of twelve

he went to Oxford, at fifteen he went to law school

he was admitted to the bar at age nineteen but he never practiced law,

instead he devoted his life

to jurisprudence and moral

philosophy.

last time we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism

the main idea

is simply stated and it's this,

the highest principle of morality

whether personal or political morality

is

to maximize

the general welfare

or the collective happiness

or the overall balance of pleasure over pain

in a phrase

maximize

utility

Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning

we're all governed by pain and pleasure

they are our sovereign masters and so any moral system has to take account of them.

How best to take account?

By maximizing

and this leads to the principle

of the greatest good for the greatest number

what exactly should we maximize?

Bentham tells us

happiness

or more precisely

utility.

Maximizing utility is a principal not only for individuals but also for communities and

for legislators

what after all is a community

Bentham asks,

it's the sum of the individuals who comprise it

and that's why

in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,

citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up,

all of the benefits of this policy

and subtract

all of the costs,

the right thing to do

is the one

that maximizes

the balance

of happiness

over suffering.

that's what it means to maximize utility

now, today

I want to see

whether you agree or disagree with it,

and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, under the name of cost-benefit analysis

which is used by companies

and by

governments

all the time

and what it involves

is placing a value usually a dollar value to stand for utility

on the costs and the benefits

of various proposals.

recently in the Czech Republic

there was a proposal to increases the excise tax on smoking

Philip Morris,

the tobacco company,

does huge business

in the Czech Republic. They commissioned

a study of cost-benefit analysis

of smoking

in the Czech Republic

and what their cost benefit

analysis found

was

the government gains

by

having Czech citizens smoke.

Now, how do they gain?

It's true that there are negative effects

to the public finance of the Czech government

because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking-related

diseases

on the other hand there were positive effects

and those were

added up

on the other side of the ledger

the positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government

derives from the sale of cigarette products but it also included health care savings to

the government when people die early

pensions savings, you don't have to pay pensions for as long,

and also savings

in housing costs for the elderly

and when all of the costs and benefits were added up

the Philip Morris

study found

that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic

of a hundred and forty seven million dollars

and given the savings

in housing and health care and pension costs

the government enjoys the saving of savings of over twelve hundred dollars

for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking.

cost-benefit analysis

now, those among you who are defenders utilitarianism may think that this is a unfair

test

Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless

calculation

you may say

that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can be easily incorporate

mainly

the value to the person and to the families of those who die

from lung cancer.

what about the value of life?

Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate

a measure

for the value of life.

One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case

did any of you read about that? this was back in the 1970's, you remember that

the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car?

anybody?

it was a small car, subcompact car, very popular

but it had one

problem which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car

and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded

and some people were killed

and some severely injured.

victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue

and in the court case it turned out

that Ford had long

since known

about the vulnerable fuel tank

and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it

to put in a special shield

that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.

They did a cost benefit analysis

the cost per part

to increase the safety

of the Pinto,

they calculated at eleven dollars per part

and here's,

this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged

in the trial,

eleven dollars per part

at 12.5 million cars and trucks

came to a total cost of

137 million dollars to improve the safety

but then they calculated

the benefits

of spending all this money on a safer car

and they counted 180 deaths

and they assigned a dollar value

200 thousand dollars

per death

180 injuries

67 thousand

and then the cost to repair

the replacement cost for two thousand vehicles that would be destroyed without the

safety device

700 dollars per vehicle,

so the benefits

turned out to be only 49.5 million,

and so they

didn't install

the device

needless to say

when this memo

of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial

it appalled the jurors

who awarded a huge settlement

is this a counter example to the utilitarian idea of calculating

because Ford included a

measure of the value life.

Now who here wants to defend

cost-benefit analysis from

this apparent counter example

who has a defense?

or do you think it's completely destroys

the whole utilitarian calculus?

I think that

once again they've made the same mistake the previous case did that they've assigned a dollar value

to human life and once again they failed to take into account things like

suffering and emotional losses of families, I mean families lost earnings

but they also lost a loved one and that

is more value than 200 thousand dollars.

Good, and wait wait wait, what's you're name?

Julie Roto.

so if two hundred thousand, Julie, is too

too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one,

and the loss of those years of life,

what would be, what do you think

would be a more accurate number?

I don't believe I could give a number I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to

issues of human life.

I think it can't be used monetarily

so they didn't just put to low a number,

Julie says, they were wrong to try to put any number at all.

all right let's hear someone who

you have to adjust for inflation

all right

fair enough

so what would the number of being now?

this is was thirty five years ago

two million dollars

you would put two million

and what's your name

Voicheck

Voicheck says we have to allow for inflation

we should be more generous

then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question?

I guess unfortunately

it is for

there's needs to be of number put somewhere

I'm not sure what number would be but I do agree that there could possibly

be a number put

on a human life.

all right so

Voicheck says

and here he disagrees with

Julie

Julie says we can't put a number of human life

for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis, Voicheck says we have to

because we have to make decisions somehow

what do other people think about this? Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit

analysis here

as accurate, as desirable?

I think that if ford and other car companies didn't use cost-benefit analysis they'd eventually go out

of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable

and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs, to put food on the table

to feed their children so I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed

the greater good

is sacrificed

in this case. Alright let me ask, what's your name?

Raul. Raul.

there was recently a study done about cell phone use by drivers, when people are driving

a car,

and there's a debate about whether that should be banned

and

the figure was that some

two thousand people die

as a result of accidents

each year

using cell phones

and yet the cost benefit analysis which was done by the center for risk analysis at Harvard

found that if you look at the benefits

of the cell phone use

and you put some

value on the life, it comes out about the same

because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage

of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on

while they're driving

doesn't that suggest that

it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions

of human life?

well I think that if

the great majority of people

tried to derive maximum utility out of a service like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones

provide

that sacrifice is necessary

for

satisfaction to occur.

You're an outright utilitarian. In, yes okay.

all right then, one last question Raul

and I put this to Voicheck,