Melike Arı
0501170101
Is Valuing Human Life Immoral?
Can human life be valued? Or is valuing against moral principles? Often when asked this question,
people say that human life is invaluable. It should not be inferred here that human life has infinite value. It
is said that it is impossible for us to put value on human life. No matter how much money is offered, people
cannot give up on their own lives. No money or other goods can be exchanged for human life, human life
cannot be equal to their values. Also, just because one person's life is valuable doesn't mean that others are
not. In other words, all the resources of the world cannot be spent to save a person's life just so that
something does not happen to that person. Because this puts other people's lives in danger too. As can be
understood from here, human life can only be balanced with the life of another person.
But when asked this question, economists look at it from a different angle. Because they are against
the idea that valuing human life is immoral. Their thinking is that human life has a price. This is not because
they are callous or reckless, but because they understand that there is nothing morally lacking in pricing
human life. Because the marginal utility of money, according to economists, is zero when it dies. So no
money, no matter how big, can make up for it for giving up life. After all, we all put a price on our lives
every day through the choices we make and the actions we take. And the pricing of human life is certainly
not an immoral activity but provides a lot of life-saving information. Cropper also points out that people
are always making decisions that recognize a trade-off between the cost of more protection and the health
consequences of not taking the protection. The total value we put into our lives is extremely high and
therefore we cannot afford to be killed for any money on offer. Nevertheless, we do things will reduce the
marginal value of our lives to make our lives easier. We eat and drink too much, do not exercise enough,
or drive fast to get to our destination faster. When we do this, we reduce the marginal value of our lives.
The answer, according to government agencies, is simply that the term 'value of life' is an appropriate
abbreviation for 'safety or life risk'. Sunstein wrote about this topic “With these values the government is
not actually “valuing life.” It is valuing the reduction of mortality risk…”. To explain this sentence,
attributing a monetary value to life and attributing a monetary value to security risk are very different things.
Kant explained the difference in his famous sentence: ‘In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price
or a dignity. If it has a price something else can be put in its place as an equivalent; if it is exalted above
price and so admits of no equivalent, then it has a dignity. As we can see here, human life depends entirely
on "dignity" but may be equivalent to a certain degree of risk to life. Therefore, life may have a "price" to
reduce risks. This explains Sunstein's sentence on the subject.
My own opinion is as economists think too. Because if I was offered any amount of money and asked
to give up my life, I would never accept it. Because when I die, the value of that money is reset. Therefore,
it does not benefit me. I think human life has a value, as I know that there is nothing morally lacking in
pricing human life. Of course, there is a total value here. In other words, it doesn't make sense to die for
any money. The choices we make always play an important role in determining our value. Taking care of
ourselves is one of them. For example, having health insurance is a measure against risks. Or doing sports
throughout our life helps keep our health at the highest level. Thus, we increase our own value. What
Sunstein said about this subject also confirms my opinion. “With these values the government is not actually
“valuing life.” It is valuing the reduction of mortality risk…”. In fact, we don't actually value our lives
monetarily, but what we do to reduce the risk of death comes at a price.
Prices are units by which the exchange value of objects can be compared. Recognizing that prices
reflect the marginal value of things is the key to understanding why economists put prices on human life.
The price of tomatoes gives us information on the value of one more pound of tomato, not the value of the
entire crop. Similarly, when economists talk about the price of human life, they are referring to the marginal
value of life — the value of a slightly longer life expectancy — not the total value. Miles, the height of the
mountains; kilogram, the weight of the vegetable baskets; Hours are convenient units for measuring how
long it takes to read a book. But prices are for comparing the exchange value of something. So it is useless
if meaningful comparisons cannot be made. And there is no meaningful comparison between being alive
with a certain amount of money and dying with much more money. In Kant's words, no “equivalence” can
be established.
Being dead is a state where one cannot have anything to value, nor suffer from being deprived of
something like the satisfaction of being alive. If you offer someone money for their life, they won't accept
it. But if you say that the risk of death will double for the next year and ask how much money they want as
compensation, they will think about it. The risk increase from one in 100,000 to one in 50,000 will not be
much different for them. Because in both cases there is a risk of death. Even if these numbers are increased,
they will not care about it. They evaluate the difference between the two options in terms of monetary
terms. Therefore, it makes sense to attribute a monetary value to a change in one's security, because the
person continues to live with it. If the compensation is good, they'll be ready to accept a life that should be
lived with a slightly higher risk level. This is why risk to life can have a price, but not life.
Let's compare this issue from a different angle. According to researchers, the value of human life is
typically higher for someone living in a developed country compared to someone in a developing country.
This is because people in developed countries have higher income levels than people in developing
countries. Since the income levels of the people in the developed country are high, the life expectancy is
long, but the income of developing countries is low. Therefore, the expected life span is also short. Such a
problem would not occur if all income levels in the world were equally distributed. At the same time, in
developed countries, the state can take more measures to protect its citizens against risks. The state is trying
to reduce the death risk of citizens by increasing the security of the country, by making improvements in
the field of health, by employing workers to keep the environment cleaner, and by preventing air pollution.
Thus, people's values are also rising. Is this fair? I don't think so. Because every person's value is equal to
me and every person deserves to live more. Because, just as a person cannot choose his place of birth, his
life should not change accordingly.
In conclusion, whether human life has value or not is debatable and everyone has a different opinion
on this topic. Some people think that human life is invaluable and find such questions absurd. But according
to economists the situation is different. According to them, the marginal value of money is zero when that
person dies. They also do not give up their lives for money. But the difference is that economists think that
measures taken against risks have a price. In other words, a person does not sacrifice their life in exchange
for money. But if you say that the risk of death will increase next year and offer him the same amount of
money, they will consider accepting it. Because it is not something that can be put on a price on human life.
Human life depends entirely on “dignity”. What we call price reflects the marginal value of something.
According to economists, the marginal value of money is zero, which explains that there is no price for
human life.
REFERENCES
 Tom Tietenberg & Lynne Lewis, Environmental & Natural Resource Economics, 9th Edition, 2013
 Wilfred Beckerman, Economics as Applied Ethics (Fact and Value in Economic Policy), Second
Edition, 2017
 https://fee.org/articles/marginalism-and-the-morality-of-pricing-human-lives/
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2380129?seq=1