Cost –benefit analysis or at least the definition that Schmidtz is operating under does have many intriguing points. Within his argument he brings forth many of CBA’s limitations and believes that if we understand these limitations then we will be able to use CBA as a tool. His goal is then Full Cost Benefit Analysis which, “refers to an attempt t carry out CBA in such a way to take all known costs, external as well as internal, into account” p. 269. Using this type of understanding we will make more educated decisions not use CBA as the sole decision maker. However, I am fearful that this is optimistic at best, with which Schmidtz would also agree. Unfortunately CBA is not immune to corruption. The reasons for people’s actions might not be the same as other people’s costs more likely than not they will be in direct confliction. While he holds out hope that people will be able to use this tool effectively I have serious doubts. Everyone has their own subjective view of the world yet this does not mean that either person is in the wrong. For example, two children dangle from a bridge; the fireman can only save one because of the time and the circumstances. Neither child’s mother would be wrong in wanting their child to be the one to be saved. Even if it was their child verses five other children being saved odds a mother will still want their child saved. The problems with CBA is not that we are corrupt but that we are human and have vastly different value and those values and different doesn’t always mean bad but it makes it harder for use to come to conclusions on how to act appropriately in moral situations.