A question of Value

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
I am not entirely sure that this thread should be posted here in this forum. It does touch upon many areas of interest and I felt that this was the best place to start with.

It's a question of values.

Scenario

A man is dying of AIDS and science is busy trying to find an effective cure.

They discover a cure. They find that the cost per cure is very small (like the cost of a packet of cigarettes (inc. research and developement))

They have to arrive at a value to sell this drug at.

How do they arrive at this figure?

Cost $5.00 but sell at what?

In other words what price is the mans life?

Do they go for the highest price they can get or do they strike some arbitary figure that satisfies them and the market?

I know that this may appear to be more an ethical question but it's the philosophy of values that is my main interest.

Scenario

A doctor is the only doctor in the world who can perform a particular operation successfully and is in high demand, how does he value his work in terms of cash?

Does he just come up with a 100% mark up on cost or what?

There seems to be an interesting paradox on how we value things that are essentially unable to be valued in that life is pricless but has a cost attached to it and therefore a value.

With out taking the high ground........ we can spend $2.00 on a coffee and yet allow a person sitting on the street die for want of that $2.00

How does Philosophy define this aspect of human nature? :confused:
 
a communist viewpoint would be either the more money you have, the more you pay
or it would be on sale for the very cheap, if it was $5 to make, maybe 15-20 or something.

However, we are capitalists, so when the cure is discovered, they'll milk everyone for all the money they can
 
From the capitalist point of view, the price is as high as majority of buyers are willing and able to pay.

Price of man's life.... How easy is it to give a life (and how long does it take)? How easy is it to take a life (and how long does it take)? That's the price, really.
 
Quantum Quack said:
With out taking the high ground........ we can spend $2.00 on a coffee and yet allow a person sitting on the street die for want of that $2.00
Click to expand...


That person is not a direct responsibility of the community, he/she is his/her own responsibility ergo an individual spending $2.00 on coffee and not on the homeless is not, neccessairly, unethical or immoral. However, homelessness is not a chosen profession and is, at times, an uncontrollable incident in life so not giving $2.00 to the homeless person everyday and instead opting to buy coffee is pretty half-hearted but that is solely a personal decision based on one's morals and adopted practice of ethics. In the end, though, that homeless being is responsible for itself; according to rules of evolution and capitilism. How we chose to value his/her life is solely based on personal biases and views...there is no transcribed way. Thats the way with most of ethical dilemmas in life.
 
Sargentlard,
Yes I agree with you.

I think possibly what people think about our person on the street is that giving him $2.00 is actually not going to help him solve his problems and we feel to give him the money is an act of futility.

I know I do.

Our first and most important responsibility is to our selves. If we want to donate $2.00 to ourselves we have no problem. To extend our generousity to others is another question.

Another question is : Should society always cater for the lowest denominator?

Should a medicine manufacturer structure his retail price on the lowest denominator?

For example;

The manufacture of anti-psychotic medications.
The target client is unable to afford any cost associated with his illness.

The medications can cost anything upwards of $30.00 per day.
How does the homeless and mentally ill person afford such medications?

Should the medicine company produce these meds freely?....Of course not...

So how do they market the humanitarian aid and price their products I wonder?

I guess ultimately the price is structured to demand. If too expensive, there is no demand etc.
 
sargentlard said:
That person is not a direct responsibility of the community, he/she is his/her own responsibility ergo an individual spending $2.00 on coffee and not on the homeless is not, neccessairly, unethical or immoral. However, homelessness is not a chosen profession and is, at times, an uncontrollable incident in life so not giving $2.00 to the homeless person everyday and instead opting to buy coffee is pretty half-hearted but that is solely a personal decision based on one's morals and adopted practice of ethics. In the end, though, that homeless being is responsible for itself; according to rules of evolution and capitilism. How we chose to value his/her life is solely based on personal biases and views...there is no transcribed way. Thats the way with most of ethical dilemmas in life.
Click to expand...


Very well said. There IS, in my opinion however :rolleyes:, a need to be compassionate. You never know when the tables are going to be turned and you find yourself staring that "drunk" in the face, begging him/her for food..
 
"Very well said. There IS, in my opinion however , a need to be compassionate. You never know when the tables are going to be turned and you find yourself staring that "drunk" in the face, begging him/her for food.."

A good point, but the 'drunk' is hardly likely to remember a guy who gave him $2 in the past, and maybe that $2 could have help u to avoid being poor
 
§outh§tar said:
Very well said. There IS, in my opinion however :rolleyes:, a need to be compassionate. You never know when the tables are going to be turned and you find yourself staring that "drunk" in the face, begging him/her for food..
Click to expand...
This was my point. It is your opinion. People disagree about ethical issues, they quarrel over whose opinion is better because they refuse to realize that how one chooses to react to a certain ethical dilemma is based on that individuals morlas and beliefs, there is no set rules of conduct.

No has to give money to the homeless because, no what anyone says, they aren't your responsibility but it is generally considered a pretty asshole thing to not give, to not even take notice of these poor souls existence and give a dollar every now and then. Now a dollar will not, generally, ruin your life if you part with it but it says no where that one must be given. That is why value of life has no set parameters even though one has to only take a look around to see that life isn't held in high regards by the masses, mainly because it is very easy to create. When you go to India and at every corner you turn you see a mass of people everywhere, no matter where you turn...just more and more people, they all start to look the same and lose their value as human beings....

"Fuck it if one dies, more faceless will take the fallens place"

...that can be said of homeless people too....sadly enough.
 
I have, on occasions, asked homless people to drive with me to help me do some yardwork around my house or other odd jobs that I need help with. I've told them I'd pay them to help a good wage or food whichever they would prefer. They all have just left me alone and went on to other people waiting in their cars asking for handouts. I would think that by offering work to a homeless person for pay would be the thing to do to get them self confidence and maybe self respect. Seems though that all they want is MONEY. I donate to local homless shelters as well as the Salvation Army for they take care of the homeless by giving them shelter and food.

By just giving homeless people MONEY they will never get out of trouble with themselves for they usually spend that money on drugs or liquer.
 
I think on the surface "homelessness" seems to be a lacking in gratitude etc etc....but one needs to look a little deeper as to why a homeless person can see no benefit in having a future.....Severe depression leads to an inability to see values as others see them. They are blinded by their sense of futility.

And I feel that others witnessing this sense this futility as well which corrupts our normal sense of values.

Homelessness can equate with "hopelessness" or no hope for the future surviving at a subsistance level only.....Their mental state being as such........"sigh"
 
I guess it all comes down to how sympathetic, for want of a better word, you are. A homeless person asks me for money. I didn't cause that person to be homeless, so why should i give them money, right? They are not my responsibility. Yet i still give them money, out of sympathy.

On that note, does anyone have any theories as to why some people become homeless, and others, like me and you, dont? Is it thier upbringing, discrimination, or just chance?
 
I think the biggest reason is the inability to function well enough to hold a job thus leading to destitution.

I think if we treat homeless children as separate, statistics will show that most homeless fall in to a older category. Usually older than 30 years.

From my experience they are homeless because they find any normal functioning too uncomfortable and resign them selves to the streets.

Even making regular rent payments is beyond them as they have very little control of what money they do come to have and spend it imediately either on grog or cigarettes.

It is hard for us to comprehend the hell that they live their lives. We don't often see tears ( all cried out I guess) but we see diminished responsibility for their own condition.

Mental illness is the problem and is not easy to discern.

If you know what causes mental illness you know what causes long term homelessness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top