[accountyaccount]

That's like saying an informed society is better than a society that doesn't have OSHA regulations... You can't dangle millions of dollars in front of (often poor, often minority) college students and say "well you were informed of the risks" and then wash your hands of all responsibility.

I could inform you that you'll die 1/6 times you play russian roulette, but that doesn't mean that it should be ethically sound (or legal) to pay you to take that chance.

[jychang]

IIRC, the calculations from NASA says that for a trained individual, the value of a human life is around $50 million. 1/6 of that is $8.3 million.

It may be unethical to play russian roulette, but is it still unethical to choose to play if you were paid $8.3 million (given that much worth in utility) first? Why not?

On the other hand, mining for minerals also has risk. Miners in Australia are highly compensated for it, getting paid over $100,000 per year.

What difference is there between the scenarios, assuming everyone involved is fully informed?

[accountyaccount]

I feel like it boils down to options a bit.

If I don't take the opportunity to work in Australian mines, will I have a reasonable opportunity to find work and provide a comfortable living for my family?

If that answer would change whether or not I'd work in a mine, I'd consider that the work may be exploitative of a regional work shortage. At that point someone might feel as though sacrificing their health is their only option, and an informed decision is much harder to make.

Like many ethical questions, it warrants discussion even though there may not be a "right" answer either way.

[urethrafranklin]

You're welcome to your opinion but I find it un-goddamned-American. This country was built on the ability to do risky things for a chance at a payout!