Sneaky27 Posted:

You misunderstand, I’m not bumigning moral value. I just wanted to clarify where you were coming from. Which is that a human life is worth X amount.

Ahem, are you sure you understood what I said? I said that saving a human life justifies X amount of expenses. The distinction is a bit subtle but important since technically a life being worth X amount would justify murder if it gained more money while the option I’ve been showing here would only justify inaction when saving one life is more expensive.

It may seem a bit harsh when applied ideologically but in real life we’d not see any problems related to that in a very long time because even saving all lives costing less than X will take an awfully long time. In case anyone wants to apply some kind of logical fallacies to my “confession”, just remember that saving every possible life would result in quite extreme and ridiculous measures. The term “acceptable risk” exists for a reason.

And to avoid derailing this thread any further, when it comes to anti-terrorism the price paid for the comparatively (see the calculations) few saved lives has a steep immaterial price as well, unlike many other, better, methods.