Michael Sandel discussed the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and the cost benefit analysis. He gives the examples of the cost benefit analysis conducted by Ford in connection with promoting the safety of the Ford Pinto or not. Ford concluded that it would cost more to promote the safety than to pay back for injuries and losses which may occur in a case of the accident. In his calculations Ford assigned the monetary value on human life. Sandel discussed Ford’s decision in class and some of the students argues that it was unacceptable to put monetary value on a human life. Other students argued that in order to maximize the utility you should put some value, usually the dollar amount, even on human life. Sandel discussed are two main My main concern that the idea of the greatest good for greatest number. I personally believe that human life cannot not be converted into monetary values, due to the idea that our life is priceless. Ray Robins (2000) discussed the cost benefit analysis in the health care system and he wrote that cost benefit analysis “ ignores the non-financial costs of pain, suffering, and grief which are often associated with illness [and] is not based on an individual person 's valuations of benefits.”(p. 924) The problem is that “ a third party view is taken about people 's "worth" to the society in terms of their productive potential”(p.924) Even though we live in the society where money can play a huge role, especially in a political decisions, there should be values that cannot have a price tag. Another problem with the cost benefit analysis is usually conducted by wealthy social class. Robert H. Frank(2000) argued that "that using unweighted willingness to-pay measures virtually assures a mix of public programs that are slanted in favor of preferences of high-income persons." R. Frank discussed another problem " they give too much weight to current costs and benefits, too little weight to those that occur in the future, as a result it often generates misleading prescriptions.
Miller, H. D. (2009). From volume to value: better ways to pay for health care. Health Affairs
The goal is to achieve happiness and to avoid pain. He believed that a self-gratifying worth in acting derives from how a person feels, the length it last, the certainty, results that follow after taking actions, the benefits, and avoidance of any form of negative outcome. The methods of utility describe the meaning of moral obligation. This is refereed the happiness for all affected by the action taken. Bentham indicates that social policies are exanimated by the effectiveness it has on the general population that is involved. However, Mills utilitarianism on moral theory is an extension from Bentham’s view. He suggested some improvements to Bentham’s structure, meaning, and application (Philosophy Pages,
Does every citizen have the right to have access to basic health care in the wealthiest country of the world? The current healthcare system in America has many inequalities in the access, quality, and cost of healthcare among different economic groups of people. In addition, it would be more beneficial to give citizens access to preventative care that could avoid health issues by addressing them early on, while they are still manageable. Siegfried Karsten (1995), professor of economics at West Georgia College, brings up a valid argument in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology when he questions whether “society really can afford not to cover all people…..is it economically and politically rational to continue to have millions of people develop serious health problems, at great costs to society……because they are financially unable to obtain the necessary medical care when it does them the most good?” (p.138). The cost of healthcare in America is a deterrent to lower income groups who cannot afford insurance, or even if they have insurance, hesitate to seek treatment due to deductibles and copays.
To truly answer if a value should be put on a human life, Amanda Ripley, author of “What Is a Life Worth”, wrote on how human lives after September 11th, 2000, were placed into a monetary value chart so as to “compensate” the families for their loss. “Is a poor man's life worth less than a rich mans?” Ripley wrote ( Ripley 56). A man by the name of Feinstein had to create a chart that “accurately” calculated the life of a human being.
The estimated risk to consumers, along with the potential financial cost of loss of life is deemed lower than the financial burden of making the modification to the cars in question. If Ford were to add the extra part to the Pinto, there would have been an added cost in production, which would then have been passed on to the consumers by way of the purchase price for the vehicle; nevertheless, the risk would have been greatly diminished or eliminated. Using this approach, Ford did the right thing. The company was happy because they saved money on production, consumers could purchase what they considered to be a quality vehicle at a reasonable price. This course of action led to a greater yield of happiness than the alternative. Adding the extra part would have resulted in
... value ordering. Goldman says life does not hold value in itself; instead most individuals derive the meaning of life from their accomplishments and happiness to the point where individuals may even risk their health and lives to attain those. As established before about paternalism in a medical contest, it is only the patient’s true values that can be primary determinants of their futures.
Health care can benefit everyone and their different income values. Health care should be required and the risk of spending on insurance should be taken even if many Americans believe they do not need health insurance. There are always possibilities of emergencies occurring and in need of insurance for the high costs of medical care. I personally believe and argued my opinion that health care needs to be required for everyone. To conclude my argument, I have argued that there are more benefits to have healthcare insurance required and that everyone in America deserves a happy and healthy
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Holmes offers three criticisms of utilitarianism. How is one going to achieve it so that it does benefit the highest number of people? How do you decide how to distribute the benefits in the best possible way? I agree that it would be very hard to decide the best way to distribute the benefits equally. How would a person decide if you do it over time or all at once? Utilitarianism sounds like a good way to live, as there are times it is necessary to safe the individuals t...
Sandel then speaks about the philosophy of utilitarianism, by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s idea is that the right thing to do is to maximize the balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over suffering. He supported his idea stating every human has pleasure and pain, while liking pleasure and not pain. The overall summary of Bentham’s idea is “the greatest good for the greatest number”, believing you should make the best of the levels of happiness. To support Bentham’s theory by telling a real life story about the case of “The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens”. The story was about 4 men being stuck on a lifeboat with two cans of turnips. There was a captain (Dudley), a first mate (Stephans), a sailor (Brookes), and the last was a Richard Parcher, the cabin boy who was
An 'economic cost-benefit analysis' approach to reasoning sees actions favoured and chosen if the benefit outweighs the cost. Here, the benefits and costs are in the form of economic benefits and costs, such as, monetary loss or profit. One who is motivated by such an approach will deem a course of action preferable if doing so results in an economic profit. Conversely, actions will be avoided if they result in an economic loss (Kelman 1981).
The principle of utility influences people to act on the wrong terms and encourages its followers to make decisions solely based on what produces the best results. Consequentialists, Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill believe that it doesn’t matter why a person does something or what motivates them to do so; but rather they think that the outcome is the most important factor in decision making. These two Utilitarian philosophers concluded that the greatest form of good in society was happiness, and that the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure should always be one’s number one priority and ultimately always one’s end goal. Encouraging members
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Placing monetary value on an individual’s life is measured not by the way an individual has lived, but rather the individual’s income; at least that is how society views life. Every individual values life from a different perspective. And while every human will find value in life, those values will not be the same as everybody else. Some people will value life as a privilege and believe life should be taken seriously while considering the consequences in every decision contemplated while others will live in the fast lane with an irresponsible mindset. Individuals also view life differently depending on the circumstances. However, no matter how an individual views life, it seems to be impossible to extract emotion out of any decision. Society, on the other hand, values life by placing a monetary value on a human life. Society also has no choice but to set emotion aside when setting that monetary value. The government will use that value to compensate a family who has just lost a love one. However, some families mistake the compensation for “replacing” the lost soul and become indignant. There are many alternatives when it comes to compensating the victim’s family. In most times, society always ends up placing a value on an individual based on his/her income. Furthermore, while society delivers compensation to families, society also believes in compensation for an individual’s pain and suffering. There are times society should place a monetary value on life, while having restrictions.
The cost of US health care has been steadily increasing for many years causing many Americans to face difficult choices between health care and other priorities in their lives. Health economists are bringing to light the tradeoffs which must be considered in every healthcare decision (Getzen, 2013, p. 427). Therefore, efforts must be made to incite change which constrains the cost of health care without creating adverse health consequences. As the medical field becomes more business oriented, there will be more of a shift in focus toward the costs and benefits, which will make medicine more like the rest of the economy (Getzen, 2013, p. 439).