Abstract
Ten years ago, it was commonplace for economists to calculate the value of human life as the lost economic productivity associated with a shortened life-span.1 As is well known, such a view has been shown to be grossly inadequate. Most obviously, it leads to counter-intuitive results, such as that the value of the life of a 65-year-old laborer is equal to the sum of his remaining earnings until retirement or that the value of the life of a small child is near zero, since her future earnings are discounted at a market rate of interest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See, for example, L. Lave and E. Seskin, “Air Pollution and Human Health”, Science 169, No. 3947 (1970): 723–733; hereafter cited as: APHH. See also D. Rice, Estimating the Cost of Illness. PHS Publication No. 947–6. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.).
In two essays, I argue in favor of analytic assessment techniques. See “Technology Assessment and the Problem of Quantification”, in R. Cohen and P. Durbin (eds.), Philosophy and Technology, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Boston: D. Reidel, 1983), forthcoming, and “Die Technikbewertung und das Problem ihrer genauen Berechnung”, in F. Rapp (ed.), Technikphilosophie in der Diskussion, (Weisbaden: Vieweg Verlag, 1982), pp. 123–138.
See A. Kneese, S. Ben-David, and W. Schulze, “A Study of the Ethical Foundation of Benefit-Cost Analysis Techniques”. Working paper, 1979, pp. 2323 ff.; hereafter cited as: Foundations.
This method consists of experts’ formalizations of past societal policy regarding various risks. Followed by assessors such as Starr and Whipple, the technique rests upon the assumption that past behavior regarding risks, benefits, and their costs is a valid indicator of present preferences. In other words, the “best” risk-benefit trade-offs are defined in terms of what has been “traditionally acceptable”, not in terms of some other (e.g., more recent) ethical or logical justification. This, of course, involves the assumption that past behavior is normative, whether it was good or bad, or right or wrong. For this reason, some theorists have argued that the method of “revealed preferences” is too conservative in making consistency with past behavior a sufficient condition for the correctness of current risk policy (see B. Fischhoff et al., “How Safe is Safe Enough?” Policy Sciences 9, No. 2 (1978): 149149: hereafter cited as: Safe.) See also note 5.
Unlike the method of “revealed preferences”, that of “expressed preferences” does not rely on past policy. Developed by assessors such as Fischhoff and Slovic, this approach consists of using questionnaires to measure the public’s attitudes toward risks and benefits from various activities. The weakness of this method, of course, is that often what people say about their attitudes toward various risks appears inconsistent with how they behave toward them. Some theorists also view the method as too variable since it takes no account of past societal behavior but only relies on selected responses as to what people say they believe about risks (see Fischhoff et al., Safe, p. 149.) See also C. Starr, Current Issues in Energy (New York: Pergamon, 1979), p. 7; hereafter cited as Energy.
See C. Starr and C. Whipple, “Risks of Risk Decisions”, Science 208, No. 4448 (1980): 1118; hereafter cited as: Risks, and J. Hushon, “Plenary Session Report”, in the Mitre Corporation, Symposium/Workshop on Nuclear and Nonnuclear Energy Systems: Risk Assessment and Governmental Decisionmaking (McLean, Virginia: The Mitre Corporation, 1979), p. 748; hereafter cited as: Hushon, Report, and Mitre, Risk. See also D. Okrent, “Comment on Societal Risk”, Science 208, No. 4442 (1980): 374; hereafter cited as: Risk, and M. Maxey, “Managing Low-Level Radioactive Waste”, in J. Watson (ed.), Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management (Williamsburg, Virginia: Health Physics Society, 1979), p. 401; hereafter cited as: Maxey, Wastes, and Watson, Waste. Finally, see C. Comar, “Risk: A Pragmatic De Minimus Approach”, Science 203, No. 4378 (1979): 319; hereafter cited as: Pragmatic, and B. Cohen and I. Lee, “A Catalog of Risks”, Health Physics 36, No. 6 (1979): 707; hereafter cited as: Risks.
F. Hapgood, “Risk-Benefit Analysis”, The Atlantic 243, No. 1 (January 1979): 2828; hereafter cited as: RBA. See also J. Norsigian, in Congress of the U.S., Fertility and Contraception in America. Hearings before the Select Committee on Population, 95th Congress, Second Session, III, No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 375. Norsigian points out that investments in contraceptive research and development are inequitable because the cost per male life saved is much greater than the cost per female life saved.
See note 6.
Starr and Whipple, Risks, p. 1118 (note 6).
Hushon, Report, p. 748 (note 6).
F. Hapgood, “Risk-Benefit Analysis”, The Atlantic 243, No. 1 (January 1979): 2828; hereafter cited as: RBA. See also J. Norsigian, in Congress of the U.S., Fertility and Contraception in America. Hearings before the Select Committee on Population, 95th Congress, Second Session, III, No. 4 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 375. Norsigian points out that investments in contraceptive research and development are inequitable because the cost per male life saved is much greater than the cost per female life saved.
Okrent, Risk, p. 373 (note 6).
B. Fischhoff et al., “Which Risks are Acceptable?” Environment 21, No. 4 (May 1979): 1717; hereafter cited as: Risks.
Okrent, Risk, p. 374 (note 6). See also Starr, Energy, pp. 22–23, and D. Okrent and C. Whipple, Approach to Societal Risk Acceptance Criteria and Risk Management. PB-271 264 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977), pp. 3–11; hereafter cited as: Approach. Others who share this point of view include: C. Sinclair et al., Innovation and Human Risk (London: Centre for the Study of Industrial Innovation, 1972), pp. 11–13, and Committee on Public Engineering Policy, Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decisionmaking (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering, 1972), p. 12. These latter two works are hereafter cited (respectively) as: Sinclair, Risk, and Committee, Perspectives.
Okrent, Risk, p. 375 (note 6). See Starr, Energy, p. 10 (note 5), and L. Sagan, “Public Health Aspects of Energy Systems”, in H. Ashley et al. (eds.), Energy and the Environment (New York: Pergamon, 1976), p. 89; hereafter cited as Sagan, Public, and Ashley, Energy.
In an insightful query in a private conversation, Stuart Spicker has asked how individuals’ needs are relevant to moral obligations to them. He fears that there might be a confusion between “ought talk” and “need talk” here. However, I am asserting no general claim to the effect that moral obligations to do “x” are proportional to someone’s need for “x”. Rather, the claim is that, all things being equal, government has more obligation to reduce risks to citizens when citizens have little control over their own safety, and less obligation to reduce risks to citizens when they have more control. The point is a relative one; given two risk situations—alike in all respects save that, in one, the individual has more control over his safety, while in the other, he has less— government has more obligation to help those who cannot help themselves.
See K.S. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy (Boston: D. Reidel, 1983), second edition, pp. 34–35.
R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1977), p. 273273; hereafter cited as: Rights.
T.C. Bergstrom, “Living Dangerously”, in D. Okrent (ed.), Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application (Los Angeles: UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science, 1975), p. 233.
For a similar argument, see M. Bayles, Morality and Population Policy (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1980), pp. 28–31; hereafter cited as: Morality.
G.L.S. Shackle, Epistemics and Economics: A Critique of Economic Doctrines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 8282; hereafter cited as EE.
Shackle, EE, p. 82.
E. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis (New York: Praeger, 1976), pp. 153–174; hereafter cited as: CBA. See also Peter Self, Econocrats and the Policy Process (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 68.
Okrent, Risk (note 6), p. 375.
H. Siebert, Economics of the Environment (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1981), pp. 16–17; hereafter cited as: Siebert, EE.
Okrent, Risk (note 6), pp. 372–375.
M. Bayles, Morality (note 20), p. 121.
Alan Gewirth, Reason and Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 222–240, argues that many omissions are morally reprehensible, and I do not wish to take issue with (what I believe is) an essentially correct point. My thesis is that one is likely more responsible for acts of commission than for acts of omission. Gewirth’s book is hereafter cited as: Reason.
Gewirth, Reason, p. 226.
This point is also made by Gewirth, Reason, p. 223.
Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, Technology Assessment of Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System: Summary and Findings, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979) II, pp. 207–208, 219.
Cited by Maxey, Wastes (note 6), p. 401.
E. Lawless, Technology and Social Shock (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, 1977), pp. 509–512.
Kneese et al., Foundations (note 3), p. 26. K. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy (Boston: D. Reidel, 1983), pp. 108ff.
For an excellent defense of this position, see W.K. Frankena, “Some Beliefs about Justice”, in J. Feinberg and H. Gross, Philosophy of Law (Encino, California: Dickenson, 1975), pp. 252–257; hereafter cited as: Frankena, Beliefs, in Feinberg and Gross, POL. See also W.K. Frankena, Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 41. “Prima facie egalitarians” (Frankena calls them “procedural egalitarians”) are to be distinguished from substantive egalitarians, who believe that there is some factual respect in which all human beings are equal. Prima facie egalitarians deny that there is some such factual respect. I am grateful to Dr. Douglas MacLean of the University of Maryland for suggesting that I use the term prima facie egalitarian.
W.T. Blackstone, “On Meaning and Justification of the Equality Principle”, in Blackstone, Equality.
See note 36. John Rawls, “Justice as Fairness”, in Feinberg and Gross, POL (note 35), p. 284, also makes this point; hereafter cited as Rawls, Fairness.
For arguments to this effect, see M.C. Beardsley, “Equality and Obedience to Law”, in Sidney Hook (ed.), Law and Philosophy (New York: New York University Press, 1964), pp. 35–36; hereafter cited as: Equality. See also Isaiah Berlin, “Equality”, in Blackstone, Equality (note 36), p. 33; Frankena, Beliefs (note 35), pp. 250–251; M. Markovic, “The Relationship Between Equality and Local Autonomy”, in W. Feinberg (ed.), Equality and Social Policy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), p. 93; hereafter cited as Markovic, Relationship, and Feinberg, Equality. See also Rawls, Fairness (note 35), pp. 277, 280, 282, and G. Vlastos, “Justice and Equality”, in R.B. Brandt (ed.), Social Justice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962), pp. 50, 56; hereafter cited as Brandt, Justice.
J.R. Pennock, “Introduction”, in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds.), The Limits of Law, Nomos XV, the Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (New York: Lieber-Atherton, 1974), pp. 2, 6; hereafter cited as: Pennock and Chapman, LL.
R.A. Wasserstrom, “Equity” in Feinberg and Gross, POL (note 37), p. 246, also makes this point. Even the Fourteenth Amendment, under the equal-protection clause, does not prohibit all discrimination, but merely whatever is “arbitrary”. In this regard, see N. Dorsen, “A Lawyer’s Look at Egalitarianism and Equality”, in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds.), Equality, Nomos IX, Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (New York: Atherton Press, 1967), p. 33; hereafter cited as: Look in Equality.
See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971); hereafter cited as: Rawls, Justice. See also Charles Fried, Right and Wrong (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978); and Alan Donagan, The Theory of Morality (Chicago: University of Chicage Press, 1977). See also S.I. Benn, “Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests”, in Pennock and Chapman, Equality (note 50), pp. 75–76. See also Frankena, Ethics (note 37), pp. 41–42.
I am grateful to Dr. Toby Page of California Institute of Technology, for pointing out the question of whether the Principle of Everyone’s Advantage is identical to the Potential Pareto criterion. There appear to be two reasons why they are not the same. First, the principle requires that everyone’s advantage be served in fact, and that compensations be carried out, if everyone’s advantage requires it. The Pareto criterion, however, does not require that the compensations actually be carried out. Second, the principle defines “advantage” as overall welfare (including noneconomic well-being), whereas the Pareto criterion defines “advantage” in a purely economic sense. As was pointed out earlier in this paper, serving everyone’s advantage might include according them their rights to equal concern and respect. Such rights, however, do not fall within the scope of the Pareto definition of “advantage”.
W.K. Frankena, “The Concept of Social Justice”, in Brandt, Justice, pp. 10, 14.
In the second to last section of this paper, we observed that discrimination in safety programs might be less justifiable to the degree that the programs shared similar constituencies, goals, risks, benefits, and consequences. Interpreting this preliminary observation in the light of the principle of everyone’s advantage, we can now affirm that discrimination (among potential victims affected by alternative safety programs) is likely to be justifiable to the degree that the programs have dissimilar constituencies, goals, risks, benefits, and consequences—provided that the discrimination works to the advantage of everyone.
Continuing our private conversation on the issue of whether any discrimination might work to everyone’s advantage, Dr. MacLean’s response to my rejoinder about compensation is that it would be “practically impossible” to accomplish such compensation. To this response, at least two points can be made. First, unless compensation is attempted in the cases in which it appears reasonable and equitable to try it, one will never know if it might be successful. Hence, the only way not to beg the question of whether compensation might work is to try it. Second, the move toward compensation is at least plausible since welfare economists such as Mishan have discussed recognition of amenity rights, which would likely involve at least some cases of compensation. Recognition of amenity rights might require governments to examine the whole set of social costs (including imposed risks and various discriminations) in our society. Compensating the victims of such costs need not be more complex, in principle, than providing for the many current types of income tax deductions and government subsidies prevalent today.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1986). Risk-Cost-Benefit Methodology and Equal Protection. In: Covello, V.T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J. (eds) Risk Evaluation and Management. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9245-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2103-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive