Value of Life

I (Arthur) have been thinking a lot about the value of human life.  No, this isn’t the result of existential angst; it is a very pragmatic question whose implications have a dramatic effect on a variety of questions.  Hence, if you care, dear reader, walk with me through my line of reasoning.

The theological answer is that man possesses an immortal soul which Christ came to redeem with his infinitely valuable blood, thus every human life has infinite worth, right?  If true, how do we play that out as a society that must make constant concessions between safety and practicality?  In 1987, many states increased their posted speed limits from 55 to 65 mph.  People consequently spent less time in transit while traffic fatalities increased by a third.  Take the value of all that saved time divided by the lives lost, and you come up with $1.5 million.  This was deemed an acceptable societal cost, and no real movement has ever gone into reducing speed limits ever since.

I work a bit with OSHA safety compliance at work.  OSHA sets the worth of human life at $3.5 million, meaning that someone deemed the cost of implementing each requirements is less than $3.5 million for each life that will be saved.  I don’t know if this is the right value or not (other notable values are the FDA at $9.1 million, the Department of Transportation at $6 million (obviously public opinion keeps the speed limit higher than that number would give us), and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission at $2 million), but this thinking has given me pause each time I hear about how much regulations stymie business.  I know people don’t feel this way, but isn’t this effectively saying that the government is accessing the value of human life too high?

One line of thought would argue for “market based solutions,” which would argue we don’t need the government making these decisions, acceptable risk is calculated every day by people going about their lives making their own decisions.  Perhaps that is correct, but then:

·     Is a market based solution going to ensure those reaping the benefits also pay for harm accrued, i.e., does the market ensure a factory whose air pollution increases rates of asthma in a community will ultimately pay for the lost quality of life?  Can the market ensure the people experiencing harm from market decisions are the ones being compensated for their hardships?

o   Are consumer choices the thing compelling companies to pay for caused harm or change their practices?  If so, would we all be so much better off that people are going to have enough money that they can make conscience-based purchasing decisions?  They sure don’t now.

o   If not consumer choice, is it worker choice?  Doesn’t that place people in the weakest financial position into possibly exploitative situations? 

·       Is a market based solution tenable in all circumstances?  How does fluctuating demographics, technological advances, business cycles, and a slew of other variables effect the balance of market solutions?  Are we comfortable with the idea that valuation of human life at any given instance will be dependent on these variables?

·        Will consumer choice really reward ethical companies, or will lower cost goods and services garnered unethically drive ethical companies out of business?

·       Do we really expect the “invisible hand” to value life and human dignity the same way we do?  Even if everyone held high regard for human dignity, wouldn’t market competition drive good men to strive to cut costs as much as possible, forcing tough choices between safety, cost, and practicality?

·         Is there any historic precedent supporting this assertion?

Perhaps the market is truly that powerful a tool, but my current understanding of history and economics has caused me to doubt the efficacy of a pure market-based approach.  Many good people genuinely disagree with me in this area, but I hope we are united in our belief in the sanctity of human life, and that our dedication to this premise takes precedent over any ideological preferences regarding markets, or the role of government, or anything else.

Anyway, that has been a musing of mine for a while now.  I hope you found my thoughts on the matter interesting enough to justify the time spent reading, and that in thinking about how our society can be the most just, we may show that Omnia Vincit Amor.