Is Utilitarianism in terms of Cost Benefit Analysis Moral?

Is Utilitarianism in terms of Cost Benefit Analysis Moral?

Cost Benefit analysis(CBA) is the simple process of comparing costs with benefits to see which outweighs the other. A method that has been in use since the beginning of time by the government, Private companies and agencies and even the members of households before making a simple investment. Cost Benefit analysis; So elementary and conclusive yet so accurate. Within a matter of minutes and calculations, the value of your deliberated action is in front of you.

Then where does Utilitarianism come into the discussion? Cost benefit analysis is based on the principals of the Utilitarian moral theory as presented by Bentham. Utilitarianism is defined as finding balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over suffering. Its primary aim is to maximize the overall level of happiness. It is the most influential version of consequentialist moral theory i.e theories that locates morality in the consequences of an act.

CBA goes hand in hand with the Utilitarian theory and many of the pivotal decisions taken in today’s society depend upon it.

Then what seems to be the problem?

Hopefully after discussing the following two cases, the moral quandary becomes clearer.


The first case landed itself up in the Court in the 1970’s. This is the People v. Ford Motor co. or more famously known as Ford Pinto case. Pinto was one of Ford’s most famous model cars. However, In this car the engine was built in such a way that in case of an accident the car would instantly explode causing serious injury or death. The car had been recorded to at least cost 27 people their lives. However, mishaps like these could be prevented simply by installing a windshield with the engine. This was subsequently brought up in the court during a case filed by one of the late victims' family members. However, Ford Company brought a counter argument to the table, one that left everyone dumbstruck. Ford argued that they had considered installing windshields and their professionals carried out a CBA for it. However, from the result what came to be was that the Cost of installing windshield far exceeded the price of compensating for the families. In the analysis a measure for value of life was incorporated on the terms of company. Outraged, the judge ruled against Ford for withholding information and ignoring human rights for the sake of earning profit.


The other case took place in 2003. The US Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA was trying to figure out how much money should be invested in reducing air pollution. They tried to answer this question with a CBA. Their estimates revolved around the question of how many lives would be saved by cleaner air and how much each life was worth. The worth of each life depended on how much happiness that person could achieve over their life. It set the value of a life at $3.7 million, except for people older than 70, whose lives it valued at $2.3 million dollars. This naturally led to a lot of controversy and chaos in the society where this decision received a lot of backlash from people, mainly senior citizens. Critics call the policy the "senior death discount" and finally it was taken to the court. In 2003, EPA assigned the same price to each and every life.

Now that the Moral dilemma becomes more eminent, the plight remains is the act moral or not?

On the one hand,

Many argue that CBA doesn’t promise humans their fundamental rights. Treating people as numbers rather than ones with mind, soul, heart as well as some comparative meaning in the world is wrong. Feeling entitled enough to try to estimate the value of a life using measures we deem appropriate is hierarchy. It's a power no one should have.

Secondly, In too many scenarios does it equate itself with human suffering and agony. For eg- the simple example of the audience of Colosseum. Older times, the Romans used to throw a Christian man into a pit as he got devoured by a lion, and they cheered on from the background. Albeit being a gross violation of the right to be completely inhumane, Utilitarianism would argue that since the happiness of thousands of Romans maximizes/increases, letting the man get devoured is better for societal welfare.

Finally, it is important to note that it is impossible to factor in and take accurate measures while assigning values for human life. For a family that lost their loved one, it can’t be easy to hear that their daughter's life didn’t have enough worth to make the investment that could have saved her life. In both the cases discussed above the biggest controversy arose from the fact that the EPA and Ford assigned numerical value to human life on their own terms. While the value might have factored in a lot of important indicators, most of the calculations didn’t factor some inconspicuous indicators like emotional expense, social impact etc. That's where the dilemma arises, what do we factor in while assigning a fixed value for human life? How do we assign value to invisible indicators like these? Do they vary case to case or do we take an average value?

On the other hand,

I argue that our world remains functional by maximizing utility and balancing pleasure over pain i.e our economy and society depends on making Utilitarian choices. Moreover, somewhere along the line it is important to simplify the complexity of decisions.We can allot monetary value to everything. Moreover, it is important to do so or basic decisions would be affected. Otherwise it just leads to the downfall of society and economy.

Secondly, I believe it doesn’t fail to respect minority rights. It treats everyone equally as each life has equal value. Only thing that varies their value is their utility or man happiness; Not Race, gender and religion and that way it's a fair measure to abide by.

Thirdly, an argument of mine that also hinges on J.S Mill’s work is that Utilitarianism is not Inhumane. It is humans whose principles and values that decide what’s humane and inhumane. If throwing A christian man into a lion pit brings joy to the crowds of the Coliseum it means the majority don’t see it as an inhumane act. If it were truly seen as inhumane, the act would bring upon sorrow, regret and guilt rather than joy going against utilitarianism, since it wouldn’t maximize happiness. “ The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it.”- J.Mill

To add on, over time the higher pleasure will come out from an act with moral worth rather than immoral as J.S Mill says.


To summarize my thoughts before I move on to the structure, I believe Cost Benefit analysis plays a vital role in today’s time. Disposing with this empirical tool is not the answer. But that being said, manier times CBA has been sadistic, inhumane and insensitive. If it is a tool that our society functions on, then it should be made mindful of their rights. For that I propose the following-

Structure

To Ensure CBA is as humane and accurate as possible-

We need to go back to the basics i.e the best way to come upon accurate value with the help of Thorndike's survey. American psychologist and professor at Columbia University in the 1930’s, Edward Thorndike came up with a survey to prove that all goods, all values and all human concerns can be translated into a single uniform measure. He did this by conducting a survey of the young recipients of relief, this was in the 1930's and he asked them, he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them how much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences. The values for different experiences varied by a lot. I believe we can put Thorndike’s survey in use today too in different regions to get an estimate of the value of different compensation. This way it's free and fair as people themselves are making the decision and they are including their emotional and physical expenditure.


CBA in agencies should be done by a wider board of consultants to ensure regulation. These values should be reviewed from time to time taking into account inflation, rise in prices etc.


With the help of Thorndike’s survey we should also try to come up with an average cost for emotional equivalent. An agreeable value taken, should then be added into every CBA calculated that involves human life.