Risk-cost-benefit methodology and equal protection.
Material type:
TextLanguage: ENG Publication details: 1986Description: 21pSubject(s): Subject: There are strong grounds for rejecting absolute acceptance of the commensurability presupposition and the reasons typically used to support it. Situations of costing lives, across opportunities, appear to fall into two classes, one of which is more amenable to use of this presupposition, and one of which is less so. The whole issue of the marginal cost of saving lives, across opportunities, is not so much a matter of economic consistency as of ethical analysis.
| Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Books
|
Australian Emergency Management Library | BOOK | 368.08 SHR (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available | 005269247 |
Browsing Australian Emergency Management Library shelves, Collection: BOOK Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Reprinted from Risk evaluation and management; edited by Vincent T. Covello, Joshua Menkes and Jeryl Mumpower. New York: Plenum Press, c1986, pp275-295
Reprint
There are strong grounds for rejecting absolute acceptance of the commensurability presupposition and the reasons typically used to support it. Situations of costing lives, across opportunities, appear to fall into two classes, one of which is more amenable to use of this presupposition, and one of which is less so. The whole issue of the marginal cost of saving lives, across opportunities, is not so much a matter of economic consistency as of ethical analysis.
Commercial
1
There are no comments on this title.