Cost-Benefit Doesn't Cut it

I agree with Mark Sagoff that we cannot make decisions regarding public policies about the environment or anything else non-economic related based solely on a cost-benefit analysis. Decisions based only on what the costs will be compared to what the benefits will be is irresponsible and disregards very important conditions that should be considered such as how moral a certain situation is. In some situations, while the monetary benefit of a particular decision may be great, the ethical repercussions of that decision may still make it unfavorable.

I am in agreement with Sagoff that economic factors should not be the only concern especially when dealing with things in which the value cannot be determined by how much one is willing to pay for it. For example some believe that steps should be taken to protect worker only insofar as the benefits outweigh the costs. This is speaking in market terms. When protection becomes too expensive, the cost is no longer worth it to some people. However, the cost of these safety measures is too limited of an analysis of if they are worth employing. While society may get more "bang for its buck" this way, it is at the expense of the safety of the workers. To not take the proper measures to protect these people is immoral. This ethical dilemma according to Sagoff outweighs any monetary costs that will result.

Similarly, in the case of the environment, one cannot put a price on the trees, the land, and the creatures that inhabit them. While one cannot give a monetary value to the environment, many still argue never the less, that it has substantial value. Sagoff argues that there are two sides to every person: the consumer, who only looks for what he or she wants or needs, and the citizen, who makes decisions based on what is best for not only themselves but the population as a whole. The cost-benefit analysis only takes into account how much someone will pay for something. People are only viewed as consumers. We tend to only our wants and desires.

Sagoff points out that we also act as citizens and that this causes us to act to maintain the balance of a "good" society. Cost-benefit analysis is a good place to start when dealing with things such as public safety and environmental quality, but we must not stop at how much people want something and how much it will cost us. We need to look further into the moral implications that the decisions incur. Just because something is economically more cost effective, doesn't make it right.