Please summarize the text below. Thank you!

In my opinion, no, it is immoral to assign a price tag to human lives. A person's life has a lot higher value than money. A cost-benefit analysis cannot be justified by placing a price on human life or putting a monetary value on it. The loss of a life involves additional factors that might not be comparable to the loss of money since the latter is a type of loss that can be compensated for. Even if a price is put to a human life to save millions of dollars and avoid huge monetary losses as happened in the case of Pinto, it isn't morally correct to put human lives into danger and compromise.

Utilitarianism can help in this Pinto case because according to Bentham, "The highest principle of morality is to maximise the collective happiness." Each person's interests should be taken into account equally, but a decision is deemed correct if it benefits the majority of people. This is when it turns into a problem since it disregards every person's right. It does not favor minorities. According to their cost-benefit analysis, Ford Motor Corporation in the Pinto case did not make any design changes despite being aware of the vulnerability of their vehicle. Although their choices may have been utilitarian, in that scenario, money does not equate to emotions or reputation.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

ANSWER The text argues against assigning a monetary value to human life as... View the full answer