The difference
Well, one of them:
That would be the economist’s take. The economist with philosophical leanings would probably add that even if people claim that they find the idea of putting a value on another human being horrible, they do it themselves all the time anyway without even thinking about it.
Advertisement
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- February 2012 (10)
- January 2012 (16)
- December 2011 (8)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (21)
- September 2011 (30)
- August 2011 (26)
- July 2011 (17)
- June 2011 (17)
- May 2011 (17)
- April 2011 (14)
- March 2011 (14)
-
Categories
- 180 grader
- academia
- Africa
- alcohol
- alfred brendel
- American politics
- anthropology
- archaeology
- art
- Arthur Conan Doyle
- astronomy
- atheism
- økonomi
- bøger
- beethoven
- Bent Jensen
- berlingske
- bias
- Bill Bryson
- Bill Watterson
- billeder
- biology
- blogging
- blogs
- books
- Brahms
- bureaucracy
- Canada
- cancer
- Cartoons
- censorship
- Chess
- china
- Chopin
- citater
- Claude Berri
- climate
- comics
- communism
- cosmology
- creationism
- culture
- current affairs
- Cziffra
- Dan Simmons
- Darwin
- data
- dating
- David Copperfield
- david lynch
- demografi
- demographics
- demokrati
- den kolde krig
- denmark
- diabetes
- Dickens
- Dinu Lipatti
- disagreement
- Douglas Adams
- Dragsdal
- econometrics
- economic history
- economics
- education
- Edward Grieg
- egypt
- Eliezer Yudkowsky
- ethics
- EU
- evolution
- Ezra Levant
- Filippo Pacini
- financial regulation
- Flemming Rose
- Fogh
- foreign aid
- Forskelligt
- France
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Franz Kafka
- freedom of speech
- Friedrich von Flotow
- fun
- Fyodor Dostoevsky
- game theory
- Garry Kasparov
- genetics
- George Carlin
- george enescu
- global warming
- government
- Grahame Clark
- greg mankiw
- Hamelin
- harry potter
- health
- health care
- hemingway
- historie
- history
- Homer
- hypocrisy
- immigration
- indvandring
- integration
- IQ
- isaac asimov
- islam
- Jane Austen
- Japan
- jesusandmo
- John Stuart Mill
- Jon Stewart
- Joseph Heller
- Journalism
- journalistik
- jp
- jura
- karl popper
- Khan Academy
- knowledge sharing
- kommunisme
- kriminalitet
- kultur
- landbrug
- language
- løb
- Leland Yeager
- Lenin
- Liszt
- litteratur
- machiavelli
- Marcel Pagnol
- Maria João Pires
- Mark Steyn
- Mark Twain
- marriage
- Martin Amis
- Martin Paldam
- mathematics
- media
- medicine
- medier
- mendelsohn
- menneskerettigheder
- meta
- mikhail gorbatjov
- Mikkel Plum
- Montefiore
- Monty Python
- Morten Uhrskov Jensen
- movies
- Mozart
- Muhammedtegningerne
- music
- musik
- Muzio Clementi
- Nature
- nfl
- Nikolai Medtner
- North Korea
- nuclear proliferation
- nuclear weapons
- Obama
- Ole Vagn Christensen
- orwell
- Oscar Wilde
- overcomingbias
- Paleontology
- papers
- Pascal's Wager
- paternalisme
- people are strange
- personal
- personligt
- philosophy
- pictures
- politics
- politik
- politisk filosofi
- polls
- Psychology
- public choice
- quotes
- Rachmaninoff
- rambling nonsense
- random stuff
- regulation
- regulering
- religion
- Richard Dawkins
- Rochefoucauld
- Rowan Atkinson
- Rusland
- Russia
- samizdata
- sandmonkey
- Sartre
- Saudi Arabia
- Schumann
- science
- science fiction
- skak
- Solzhenitsyn
- Stalin
- statistics
- studies
- stupidity
- Sun Tzu
- Sundhed
- Tariq Ramadan
- taxation
- technology
- terrorisme
- Terry Pratchett
- The Art of War
- The Onion
- Thomas More
- Tolstoi
- tradeoffs
- tvangsfjernelser
- tyler cowen
- Uncategorized
- US presidential election
- USA
- valg
- velfærdsstaten
- voting
- walter gieseking
- Weekendavisen
- wikipedia
- William Easterly
- xkcd
- youtube
- ytringsfrihed
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

I remember that during or after the first Copenhagen Climate Consensus I saw an economist in danish television trying to explain, how they estimated not the value of a life, but the different values a life has in different parts of the world. It was something like the total expenditures on safety belts including costs of governmental regulation if present divided by the number of life it saved, that gave them a relative scale of human life value. I found it fascinating, but I’m sure it must have been provoking to many – if people who would be provoked by the thougt actually understood what the man had explained, which I’m sure not all did.
It’s also common to use such measures in the health care sector, using such measures would likely yield different estimates as to the ‘international value-differences’ (such estimates are always very context-specific and should be treated as such).
Anyway, every time somebody buys an I-pod, that money could instead have been spent buying a starving person some food. We don’t like to think about that, so most people don’t. More or less objective evaluations are one thing, but subjective evaluations everybody engage in all the time. People value the lives of people living far away far lower than they value the lives of people close to them, they always have, they always will, even if they wont admit that that’s what they do.