Sandel Showed Three Video Csj Putting A Price Tag
write what do you think about their writing. don’t use he/she
After watching the video lecture by Michael Sandel a few times, following are the three concepts that I learned:
All of this bases putting a price tag on human life. The argument is:
How do you calculate the worth of a person or group of people like
Phillip Morris and Ford did in their cost benefit analysis. If the
majority of the people are “Ok” with the issue, is it still right to
move forward with something that will cause injury and/or death to the
For me, this ties back to the Week 2 Discussion Board that was based
on ethics. Just because a cost benefit analysis reflect a cost saving in
the long run, is it ethically and morally right to let some people die
to save money while the majority many not be affected at all?
Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: “PUTTING A PRICE
TAG ON LIFE” | Michael Sandel | YouTube.Com [Video file]. (2009,
September 8). Retrieved from
I think that cost benefit analysis (CBA) cannot always find the
greater good of the mass, especially when dealing with the human life.
However, I do agree with Raul when he says that companies have to apply a
CBA because if they don’t they could potentially go out of business and
many individuals could lose their jobs and it would impact their
The second concept that I thought was interesting and agree with is
that when Michael Sandel says “the things we value and cherish can’t be
captured according to a single uniform measure of value”. This is
interesting because it can always be challenged or different from each
ones perspective. This i believe is why it is hard to be a
utilitarianism in every situation.
The second half of the video where they were discussing about being
told something is great so we agree that he is great. This concerns me
as I believe that this is how majority of take things and repeat things
and there a lot of us who do not think on our own to decide these things
based off of our own thoughts.
Lastly, the concept of in the long run interest of human kind, if we
do justice and respect rights, that society in a whole will be better in
the long run. I do agree with this, even if at times its not the best
for a smaller group. I think this circles back to the examples he
mentioned early off about the pinto and smoking. There are sides you can
argue and agree with that fits your agenda and perspective.
One of the topics discussed by Sandel was the cost/benefit analysis
that companies and governments weigh when deciding what’s best for the
sum of the individuals. The Phillip Morris cost/benefit analysis for
Bosnia and the students responses when putting a monetary value on human
life was interesting and a little saddening also. A few of the students
spoke about that you have to have a number when regarding human life.
It got me thinking about the United States and other countries
government response to Covid-19. I’m assuming that when having to have
the discussions and make the decisions whether to shut down the economy
to help prevent the spread of an infectious disease, that there must be a
cost/benefit analysis performed. Shutting down the economy could lead
to a lot of long-term problems if companies cannot recover from the
shutdown. Also, you don’t want people to go about their day-to-day
lifestyles interacting and spreading the virus. Makes me wonder if a
cost/benefit analysis was performed and what (if any) value did they
place on human life.
Individual Rights versus The Great Good
Sandel spoke about the rights of the individual versus what the
outcome of a situation that would result in the great good. He used the
example of 9/11 and if a terrorist was captured, then would torture be
acceptable to stop such a cataclysmic event. In my opinion, I believe
that individual gave up his human rights when he and others decided to
take that course of action. The action was completely hostile and
resulted in the loss of almost 3,000 people. If the government was able
to apprehend one of the terrorists, then I think that torture would have
been a tolerable action for the greater good to save those people.
Out of the entire discussion, I think I enjoyed this topic the most.
The topic of what pleasurable activities are better or worthier than
others. I believe that it is up to the individual to decide what they
consider to be enjoyment. I can’t watch that Kardashian show but they
were on for how many seasons? I do agree with the statement that “higher
education and cultivation is required to appreciate higher pleasure and
tend to prefer higher than lower.” Taking part of higher and lower
pleasure experiences is truly the only way that one can determine if
they’ll like it or not. I believe that only makes you a more
well-rounded individual when you try something that’s outside of your
comfort zone. I feel like the older people get, the more within their
own set boundaries they stay. As children, we’re not even told to try
everything. We just do it and figure out what’s good and what isn’t. I
think that people could learn from that and try out new things and have
new experiences. You never know what you like and don’t until you try it
out and make a decision from there.