To clear things up, I am going to explain what a ‘posting window’ is. From the start, we’ve decided that each individual author take turns posting, with a days gap. Being a goody-goody I followed it.
Somehow the rule didn’t stick and there’s a flood of post ever since, which is good.
BUT I’m missing turns!
To amends things, I am barging in right now, regardless of what’s the date…
---
We face many in our lives, from the truly trivial to down right life-threatening.
An iPod or a Sony? No wait. That’s not a choice. The iPod gets it, regardless of what model, hands down.
Scorpions or Eagles? Urm… a bit difficult, but can I have both?
Frappuchino or Mocha Latte? See. Even a simple trip down to the local Starbucks can be a difficult thing, especially when you go during lunch breaks and you’re holding up the queue because you can’t make a decision.
And hand phones. Problem arises when we have an unlimited amount of budget, and when we have a limited amount of budget. Either way we will have a problem choosing a new phone.
No too mention the scholarship and university placement offers either. They fly out from every corner and sometimes you regret applying for so much.
Only that we wish a dice could be thrown or a coin be flipped to settle the debate.
But what if, one day, you receive a note, a random one. Straight to the point, without any riddles. Just simple and clear…
If you don’t take this note to the police and get them involved, I will kill a lovely blonde school teacher.
If you do take this note to the police, I will instead kill an elderly woman active in charity work.
You have six hours to decide.
The choice is yours…
Dean Koontz, Velocity
So, what's it then?
40 comments:
take it to the police - at least you have a chance of saving BOTH their lives...
Economics cost benefit analysis:
take to police:
cost: 1 live
benefit: police might solve the crime and negate the 1 live.
do not take to police:
cost: 1 live
opportunity cost: any chance of saving both.
There's a reason we don't have a posting window. Two, in fact. Actually, make that three.
1. It'll be hard to find a way to fix a schedule that agrees with everyone.
2. No one will follow it.
3. No one will follow it.
I get the point Wayne, I get the point...
To Victor: I would do that, but since it can be any teacher or old woman someone would still die.
What is the price/worth of a life? If it's priceless, surely two lives are no different from one?
who said each life is priceless?
Read the Stiglitz report on Iraq War. Before the US government went into Iraq it estimated the live of every soldier to be 500Million.
Doing a cost benefit analysis, they decided it was PROFITABLE to go to war despite the lost of lives.
Needlessly confrontational?
I was merely asking. Obviously because people like to assume that a life is priceless.
And simply because the US Government places a price on their grunts' lives doesn't mean the general world population subscribe to that view.
Aye.
Anyhoo...mmm...hot blonde teacher...
The only thing left to do is go home, take a shower, pop a can of malta, and start blogging.
The gustave speaks the truth (almost).
moi? confrontational? lol?
I'm sure it was unintended, but doesn't hostilities (more so if it involves two ladies in a tub of mud, preferably nude... maybe that could be the next photoshoot) draw the most attention after sex, booze and drugs?
See, I was merely promoting the site!
Anyway, back to the point: How much do you think the government of any country should spend on aviation security to 'protect' the lives of people?
Do you really think your life is worth 500 million.
Seriously, I wouldn't want a price tag of what amount whatsoever on myself
Screw your photoshoot. :)
Stiglitz was arguing that the American Government underestimated the price of a live. (500 million was calculated from the total revenue each person could make in its live time). He argued that it was closer to 3 billion.
Whats wrong with my photoshoots? :P
In a personal context, putting a price on your life is impractical.
But of course, the government can estimate how much our lives cost. That's up to them. I can estimate how much I think my life is worth too.
What's wrong with your photoshoots? One of the problems, I suppose, would be that they aren't going to happen.
I would argue it is impractical to NOT put a price on lives, personal context or not. The whole notion that 'a life is priceless' stems from our social and emotional environments and constraints of the perceived norm, not to mention the social stigma which would regard putting a price on a humans live as 'inhumane' and 'emotionless'. Being practical is assigning a dollar value to every decision made, whether it involves human lives or not. To be artificially restricted by the supposed priceless-ness of a human live - that is impractical, and greatly distorts our decision making.
Aww... so much for my photoshoot campaign :(
And I would argue that it is impractical to do so, simply because it would be an artificial concept.
The Later Wittgenstein mentioned during the war years that a human life 'cannot be price-tagged like livestoc (sic)- we do not buy humans.'
If you subscribe to the slavery line of thought, you would undoubtedly argue otherwise.
Nevertheless, I feel that it any sort of 'price' on a human life is not just impractical, it is illogical and surely something of a joke. Such a price holds little standing and cannot be determined the way prices of goods are. Unless we one day start trading humans, in which case the economy will play its part in regulating the price.
Therefore, a pricetag on a human life is like virtual money in an online game. It holds little to no practical use in real life.
So much, indeed.
Oh, boohoo me and my shit intellect.
I wouldn't necessarily restrict the line of thought of putting a price tag on a human's live as merely slavery.
Today, it is increasingly the norm to treat human lives as a commodity or liability. Just open any company's annual report and you see the laying off certain sections, being branded as 'worth less than optimum'. Hence, you statement that: "a pricetag on a human life is like virtual money in an online game. It holds little to no practical use in real life. ", does not necessarily ring true - you don't need to physically trade humans to see the 'worth' of every human (as in your slavery example). Human being are being traded in companies, corporations, even between countries as we speak! New Zealand only accepts PR applicants that it deems to be valuable. If every human live was priceless, why accept the doctor over the garbage collector?
I believe Wittgenstein is a philosopher - so what standing does he have in this argument?
I believe that most, if not all major idealogical schools of thoughts put a price on human lives.
Marxism - Karl Marx argued that the value of the human live, especially the value of the worker, is the amount of work it produces, further arguing that in capitalism, the profit that the bourgeoisie derive is from part of the 'worth' of the worker, hence, directly stating, that what each humans are worth, is the amount of labor it produces.
Realist - Thucydides once commented in his epic book - The History of the Peloponnesian wars: The strong do what they can, and the weak do what they must: Doesn't this mean that the strong, are worth more than the weak? Furthermore, the famous Leviathan by Hobbes famously depicts on its cover a King that is made out of many, smaller humans. If many smaller humans = 1 king, aren't we putting a net value, even if it is abstract, on a human life?
Liberalism - Everyone should have the same opportunity, but some rise about the others. Doesn't it imply that the ones that rise about the other are worth more than then ones that don't, as it then advocates that the strong stay strong as they have worked for it, and the weak should remain weak, and they serve the strong, as they did not work as hard as the strong?
I could go on and on, but I'll leave it as that.
I was about to respond but I noticed this line: 'I believe Wittgenstein is a philosopher - so what standing does he have in this argument? '
and started laughing uncontrollably.
Note to self: calm down.
Your example of companies placing different values on workers is an interesting one. The example of choosing between a doctor and a garbage collector was laughable.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid to say that you're mistaken in believing that these actions put pricetags on individuals. Oh, and it's a bitch to keep scrolling down to see what you wrote. But I digress.
'New Zealand only accepts PR applicants that it deems to be valuable.'
This statement supports everything you have said previously. Rather unfortunate perhaps, since nothing so far has proven that individuals do and must have price tags on them, in as much as that it is:
1. The logical/ethical/viable thing to do
2. A globally accepted and acknowledged phenomenon
3. Pretty damn cool
You have clearly misjudged - you have mistaken values for price. Let us say, for example, using your 'corporation pricing', that we have a construction company that is looking for fresh graduates. Don't ask me why. And they have a choice between:
1. Joe Satriani. Who happens to be an insanely proficient guitarist, and excels at numerous other things such as drawing, painting and wanking. He also happens to be wildly popular among guitarists and the rock community. Sadly, no engineering experience here.
2. A fresh graduate who completely fails at everything other than talking convincingly and bluffing his way through civil engineering (equally convincingly).
Who is more valuable to the company? Clearly not Satch (sorry bout that). They don't need him. But by any of your price-counting methods, Satch clearly has a higher 'price-tag'. Price =/= specific value.
You dissed Wittgenstein - the Later Wittgenstein at that, then you proceeded to push aside any philosophical line of thought, proclaiming that philosophers have no standings in arguments.
Then you proceeded to give me examples of major ideological school of thoughts concerning the 'price' of human lives.
The irony hurts me.
And therefore for you to prove that each human life indeed has a 'net value', you'll have to show- wait, I just put that damn checklist somewhere up there. Oh well.
My listing off idealogical schools of thoughts was because of you opening the door on the discussion into philosophy and beyond. Perhaps I should have said: Wittgenstein is a philosopher. What standing does he have in this argument? HOWEVER, if you were to go into philosophy, etc etc etc.
But I do feel that I need to defend my: 'what standing does he have in this argument' statement more. Up until you brought up Wittgenstein, our discussion had little or nothing to do with philosophy. So to bring up Wittgenstein all of a sudden as your opening argument seemed inappropriate, as if you have run out of ideas.
Oh yes, scrolling down is a bitch.
You try to discredit my argument by stating that irregularities in the pricing system automatically means that each human life is priceless. You say that Joe Satriani is not worth as much to the construction company than he is actually worth, and that they would hire someone 'worth less'.
Well, doesn't that apply to every single item (and human) on earth? For example, Satriani's concert tickets might be worth the world to you, but it wouldn't be worth as much to me. So does that mean that Joe Satriani's concert tickets do not have a pricetag on them? You might pay the world for Maria Sharapova's autograph, but what if some random guy in the street couldn't care less whether the autograph was Maria's or his mum's? Does that mean Maria Sharapova's autograph does not have a pricetag? The last time I checked, they were still being sold (and bought, you'll be surprised to know) on ebay.
The point is, Satriani's tickets and Sharapova's autograph might be worth different to different people, so is Satriani. But does that mean that they don't have a price? I believe, the same applies to human beings, rock star guitarist or not. just because the construction company doesn't value Satriani as much as say, a record company, doesn't mean that he does not have a value, a price.
Bloody hell, I hate doing this...
Oh wait.
'But does that mean that they don't have a price?'
You do realize that I was pointing out the difference between value and price. At least you realized that too.
Pshaw, every logical discussion has some form of connection to philosophy.
And anyway, while proving that there is a difference between value and price, you have yet to prove exactly why humans have 'price tags' on them.
I agree, every logical discussion has some form of philosophy in it, but to use it as your opening argument, and completely alter the direction of this discussion from practical to philosophical, I guess that triggered my debating instincts to capitalize on your opening of the floodgates of philosophy ;)
you said: And anyway, while proving that there is a difference between value and price, you have yet to prove exactly why humans have 'price tags' on them.
I believe I never intended to prove why humans beings have price tags on them, rather that every human HAS a price tag on them.
As for the fact that every human has a price tag on them, I believe i have proved it already, mainly because:
You basically brought up 2 arguments:
It is impractical, because it is an artificial concept.
Such a price holds little standing and cannot be determined the way prices of goods are
For which I have rebutted by proving that humans, just like goods, are traded between corporations, companies, countries etc, in which you effectively conceded.
On the other hand, you have not addressed:
My point on the different schools of thoughts
Corporations, companies and countries already put a value on its employees
(and that is my reply speech instinct kicking in ;))
Lists FTW.
1. You have, under the guise of avoiding why humans have price tags on them, effectively also avoided proving the fact that humans do in fact, as you say, have price tags.
2. People traded between corporations? Rather extreme, don't you think? A sweeping statement with no proof, that's what it is. Yoda, I am. I 'conceded'? I agreed that people are valued by corporations, companies etc. In no way have I said that they are traded like goods.
3. Your point on the philosophical school of thoughts is both irrelevant and inconsistent. You pushed philosophy out of the discussion. Furthermore, you extrapolate extravagantly (double e's there) from the lines of thinking you assumed supported your case. Other than the flawed thoughts of Marx, none of the other schools of thought blatantly say that every human has a price tag.
4. Corporations etc value their employees etc. I never denied that. I pointed out that value =/= price, which you failed to address. I value this girl (real-life story here) very much. She doesn't have a price tag, sadly.
On the people being traded.
Specifically, it never and does not happen. People shift jobs accordingly to their preference.
A company may layoff a few employees if they need to, but it is never sold and others never buy them.
-H
You guys ganging up on me arr?
1. How have I avoided the question when it is you that brought up why humans have price tags? I merely pointed that I wasn't trying to prove why humans have a price tag, and went on with the point.
2. People traded between corporations: As Hafiz mentioned, people migrate from business to business as they like. However, what makes them go from business to business is the incentives, salary etc etc being offered. So effectively, aren't the corporations that make a 'higher' offer attempting to buy them over, hence trading them? In this case, we even have a price tag: the price of the offer!
3. My points on the philosophical schools of thoughts are neither irrelevant nor inconsistent. I did not push philosophy out of discussion. As I have earlier clarified my what standing does philosophy have statement, it was you that opened the door into philosophy. I have neither the intention nor to authority to close it. You say that I extrapolated 'extravagantly' on the schools of thoughts. Please point specifically as to where I 'extravagantly extrapolated'. I have merely done logical deductions, which I assure you, I am not the first to do. What authority and proof do you have to say that the theories of Marx, are indeed, not Marx's? Karl himself stated in the communist manifesto that the worker is worth the amount of work he or she produces.
4. I have already debunked your value =/= price case. Your Joe Satriani example, which was the crux of your case, as you relied on it essentially to prove your case, was discredited by me, for which you have offered no response. Lets take it like this: You value this girl a lot. (I'm sorry, girl, I'm sure you are a very nice person) But this girl, while you might value her, some companies might value her too. Regardless of what your assessment of her value is, she does have a pricetag. Lets move away from corporations. Say she is kidnapped (sorry!). Then a ransom is demanded. Irregardless of how much you may value her, she still has a pricetag on her; her life has a pricetag. Say this girl is actually your wife. You might even pay for her to be released, in that case, if another, richer, more evil tycoon wants her dead, and pays more than the ransom to kill her, she might just end up dead. Supply and demand. The market works on human lives too.
And let us not forget that you are trying to prove that every human life is priceless, which you have yet to, after deviating from the core: Essentially, your arguments have been about the flaws in my argument rather than proving your case.
I'm just too lazy to log in.
Anyway, since I was not part of this 'debate' from the start, I"m gonna just read the lists. Heh
Okay on Victor's ransom theory. Yes, the girl may have a price tag base on the ransom. But the price tag is just 'put' on her for the sake of the kidnappers. Her price is not determined by who she is, but rather by what the kidnappers are in for.
Let's say more kidnappers are involved, then the ransom will increase, so that each of them will have a bigger slice of the cake.
Another thing is the fact that how much risk have the kidnappers put themselves in, like for example been playing a game of cat-and-mouse with the cops. The higher the risk, the more the ransom will be.
Lastly, the ransom is usually requested based from what they actually want. Maybe they need the money to bail a fellow inmate? Or they want to buy a private jet and fly out.
-H
So does this prove that every human life is priceless?
Hardly. On the contrary, it just proves that every human life has a price. In fact, your example fits perfectly into the supply/demand model:
Kidnappers - supplier of human lives
Ransom provider - demand-er of human lives
This is an exact replica of any product in the world. Different suppliers want to supply at different prices, and different demand-ers demand it at different prices. Ultimately, the market value of the goods/the human live is the market equilibrium, when supply meets demand, although some external factors might be in play (willingness of the kidnappers to negotiate) that might affect the ceteris paribus.
Pshaw. The first thing I said was that the general consensus is that a human life is priceless. You proceeded to deny that fact and brought forward a couple of irrelevant points in an attempt to prove that a human life has a price tag on it - an attempt that clearly has yet to succeed.
Blind branding and sweeping statements don't work you know :P
Back at you. Yes, I got the 30th comment. I win.
Wow, 30 comments.
Lets just agree to disagree before this degenerates into vicious name calling.
Back out when you're down, good move.
But yes, we should. I'm getting quite sick of being notified that I'm getting a comment in this post.
Good job though, 32 comments. Yay.
Oh don't get the impression I'm backing down. I NEVER back down. From anything :P
But its getting boring already...
You know what? Maybe we should turn it into a blog post.
Yeah, a week long debate is tiring...
-H
What? Trying to hit 40 now?
Blog post? How about that, Wayne?
Imagine what would happen if we turned comments from every post into another blog post.
Well, this is an extraordinarily long string of comments.... Not everyday you see a 36 comment blog post...
Regardless, I say no.
as I have previously said in the chatterbox: PARTY POOPER!!!!!!!!!!
Comment number 40. Now stop before this becomes a pointless chatbox.
Post a Comment