Value and Initial Costs Sample Clauses

Value and Initial Costs. So far, I have said little about how much more stringent the duties become after they have been disrespected. But there is always a limit. In Milk, for instance, Xxxxx cannot be required to sell her kidney to make sure Xxxxxx has milk in the morning. The question is how to determine the limit in different cases. One suggestion is that what matters is the moral value at stake.30 How- ever, if that is the case, one might think Xxxxx’s duty not to cause Xxxxxx harm at t2 in Dangerous Party is very stringent. The value at stake here is a human life, which is also what is at stake in Lunch. And in the latter case, it is plausible that Xxxxx could be required to suffer very severe harm to save Xxxxxx at t2. That should give us some reason to doubt that the suggestion is correct, for it does not seem that Xxxxx is required to suffer similar levels of harm to avoid killing Xxxxxx in Dangerous Party. Alternatively, one might argue that the moral value of Xxxxxx’s life is lesser in Dangerous Party than in Lunch.31 In that case, Xxxxx’s duty not to injure Xxxxxx’s interests at t2 in the former case is less stringent than her duty to save Xxxxxx at t2 in the latter case. However, avoiding some of the contentiousness concerning whether Xxxxxx’s life has less value because of his culpability, we might instead say that how much more stringent a duty can become depends on its initial stringency. Consider the following case: Parent: Xxxxx can save her son, Xxxxxx, from drowning now, and so can Xxxx, who is a stranger. They both refuse. Shortly after, they both have another chance to save Xxxxxx, but it is now much costlier. It seems intuitive that Xxxxx’s subsequent duty is more stringent than Xxxx’s. One natural ex- planation is that Xxxxx’s initial duty was more stringent than Xxxx’s. This is compatible with 30 This is suggested by Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2019, p. 72). 31 See, for instance, Xxxxx, who claims that “[t]he responsibility or culpability of an agent for an unjust harm may play a role in determining the impersonal badness of harming that agent […]” (2017, p. 39). different ways of explaining this underlying difference. One might say that they both are re- quired to act because of the same underlying value – Xxxxxx’s life – but that this value provides reasons with different strength depending on a person’s relation to that value (for instance, being the parent of the child versus being a stranger). Alternatively, one might claim that Xx- xxxx’s life has some uniqu...