PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

B R O V E R S I O N

Bro, Professor Michael Sandel is talking about this philosophy dude named Jeremy
Bentham who thinks we can put a price tag on human life. Like seriously, he thinks we
can use cost-benefit analysis to figure out how much someone's life is worth in dollars.
Crazy, right?

And Sandel shows us some cases where this was actually done. Like when the
government decides whether to build a highway, they weigh the cost of construction and
how many lives might be lost in car accidents, and then decide if it's worth it. But the
thing is, it's hard to put a price on something as valuable as a human life. Plus, what
about the happiness of the minority? Should we ignore them just because they're not part
of the majority?

Then, Sandel brings in this other philosopher dude named J.S. Mill, who thinks
utilitarianism is still cool even though critics have pointed out some flaws. Mill says that
we can still seek the greatest good for the greatest number while protecting individual
rights. And he also believes in this idea of "higher" and "lower" pleasures, where the
higher pleasure is always what a well-informed majority prefers.

Sandel puts this theory to the test by showing us video clips of three very different types
of entertainment: Shakespeare's Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons.
He asks us which one provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mill's defense of
utilitarianism is successful. It's a pretty interesting debate, bro.

N O T E S

Topic: "Justice" lecture series by Michael Sandel, specifically Parts One and Two.

PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

Sandel discusses the contemporary use of cost-benefit analysis, which is based on

Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian logic, by companies and governments to put a dollar
value on human life.
He presents cases where cost-benefit analysis was used to justify certain decisions,
such as determining whether to implement safety features in cars, or how much to
spend on healthcare for certain individuals.
 Sandel raises objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the
greatest number, asking whether it is always ethical to give more weight to the
happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble.
He questions whether it is possible to sum up and compare all values using a
common measure like money, especially when it comes to putting a value on human
life.

PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE

Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend

utilitarianism against objections raised by critics of the doctrine.
Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with
protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction
between higher and lower pleasures.
Mills' idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-
informed majority.
Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three different forms of
entertainment: Shakespeare's Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The
Simpsons, and asks students to debate which experience provides the higher
pleasure.
Sandel questions whether Mill's defense of utilitarianism is successful and whether it
is possible to objectively measure pleasure in this way.