Can you please provide some sort of argument for this? It seems to me that trying to apply a “value” or “worth” to life is a sort of category error. Let me try a metaphor: you can quantify the value of a house but can you quantify the value of a home? It seems not only possible but blindingly obvious to me that there are many aspects to life that simply can’t be quantified using economic theory.
That’s not to say you can’t try. It’s to say that when you try you inevitably lose sight of a lot of aspects of life that are not quantifiable or subject to market interactions. When you try to understand of all life through economics what you’re actually doing is applying an economic metaphor to life, and like all metaphors economic models only elucidate some aspects of the metaphor target at the expense of hiding other aspects.
“Value” only makes sense within the context of being alive. Nothing is valuable to a dead person. How, then, could I quantify the value of my own life? It’s invaluable to me. If I somehow “sold” my own life I would be unable to actually “cash in” since no matter what was offered in return for my life it would have no value to me once I lose my life.
If you want to talk about life in general then I would think supply and demand would apply. With 7 billion people on earth it seems to me life should be dirt cheap. The more people are around, the less valuable any individual is. Does this seem like a worthwhile moral perspective to you?
Also, you used the term “barbaric” to justify taking castration off the table as a form of legal punishment. I asked you directly whether you could put “barbaric” into economic terms and thus justify this apparent moral judgment in economic terms. You didn’t answer. Could you please do so?
