On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem with the mainstream economists -- and here's the critique -- > is that they have _no independent standard for stating_ what the value of > human life is. Everything is defined in terms of the market. The best they > can say is that the market is imperfect (or is distorted by the preexisting > distribution of wealth and income), so that the "value of human life" > should be seen as a "shadow price" that would be set by an ideal market > (in an egalitarian society, I presume). > > What _is_ the value of human life, by the way? I don't know ethics well, > but I'd start with some sort of humanist assumption that all else constant, > each individual human has the same value as each other individual. Or maybe > the "value of human life" _can not_ be quantified. > Yes, like that contemptible tagline "there are some things money can't buy". The implicit subtext is "but those are only a few silly little things that we can make funny commercials out of" and "most things in life that actually matter, money can indeed buy". I think mainstream economics is very much like that commercial. The contemptible subtext is very much there, but most practitioners take some pains to put in the necessary disclaimers. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
