desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (02/25/86)
In article <2628@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek) writes: >I can think of a few problems offhand. First, a significant number of >people sincerely feel that the value of their lives is INFINITE. If you >don't believe me, ask around. A little thought reveals how silly this claim is. Anyone who makes any claim to rational behavior should certainly realize that the value of his life (to himself) is finite. An infinite value to life would mean that *any* measurable risk (e.g. any form of travel) would have infinite cost and would therefore never be undertaken. Estimating this value is another matter. Not even the most rational of us behave as if our life has a fixed finite value; rather the value varies with circumstances. >Third, and worst, what about the ETHICAL problem for libertarians -- do I >have a right to impose ANY risks on anyone without their consent? It would >seem that the only principled libertarian answer is NO!, and that this >prohibits me from pissing in the toilet, because SOMEONE somewhere would be >unwilling to accept compensation only for *statistical risk*. This is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism makes this ethical statement and then provides no way of dealing with its consequences. -- David desJardins