What would be the point I was making. We can use it, but there are somethings that supersede it.
I do take issue with using the term “priceless.” It can be distorted in so many ways. For example, Trump is justifying the wall by saying it will prevent someone from being murdered by an immigrant. Statistically, he may be right. And if you label those lives as priceless (which appears to be how he is treating them), then billions of dollars for a wall would be the sensible thing. (Before someone tries to argue against this, I’m giving an example of an absurd argument).
As for the billionaire stuff you are talking about, we are talking about two different things. I originally thought you were talking about billionaire lives using a higher value than everyone else and were not part of statistical live valuations. I was awkwardly trying to point out they are part of the statistical sample (and are thus an outlier with little influence on the value).
To your point, it’s not just the rich that profit over putting lives at stake. Got a retirement account? Did you drive to work? Etc. We all make decisions or rely on others making profit/risk decisions. The rich profit more from it. It’s reasonable to say we value life to little. But there are weird ramifications if we start doing things like saying you can’t make any money if it puts someone’s life at any risk.
Reductio ad absurdum 1: There goes every restaurant, sports team, public and private transportation, apartment, and electrical device. BoingBoing closes to avoid carbon emissions that could kill future generations. And other absurd stuff.
Maybe there’s middle ground.
So back to my original point(s): CBA was an improvement over older methods that didn’t even include the value of life. And to update: Using just CBA or calling something “priceless” are both absolutisms that can lead to bad decisions.