|
We humans really live for one another, and without other people and especially love, why bother? Reading the essay I couldn't help but think that there was something missing from the author's calculations, and this quote really brought it home. We do live for one another, and that brings not only personal benefits like the joy of loving and being loved, but societal benefits: it is part of what binds us together and makes us stronger in groups than we are alone. The value of many actions is not purely in their direct effects, but also their performative value in demonstrating and reinforcing societal norms. This value is an externality in the calculations of the author. Spending enormous sums to add some small amount of time to a terminally ill person is a manifestation of a societal value for life, generally. When someone's life is in jeopardy, our societal norm is to try to save them if we can, without stopping first to count the cost. It is the same mentality that motivates expensive search-and-rescue operations. We don't abandon people to die at sea or on freezing mountaintops, even at enormous cost and when the person came to peril through their own foolishness. Not without at least trying, anyway. These norms don't come from nowhere, though. Like all societal norms they must be taught and reinforced through action and demonstration. The author is only able to get away with counting the costs in the way he does because he is talking about his own life. If he wrote the same article about a stranger, it would seem to most people as a ghoulish violation of social norms. (Maybe not to some rationalists, I guess.) But of course, in some sense he is right, at the aggregate level, we must think of these costs. And so -- in well functioning democracies, at least -- we delegate the aggregate decisions on these things to elected bodies, who make the aggregate decisions like deciding budgets for emergency services or subsidized health care, but not individual decisions about who will be saved. |