You know how you sometimes hear arguments that particular policies should be adopted because they will save human lives? These arguments have the right goal. But a shortsighted refusal to take any form of risk ends up costing human lives in the very attempt to save them.
THOMAS (“HE’S SO SMART”) SOWELL REVEALS A FLAW IN THE “IF IT SAVE JUST ONE LIFE” ARGUMENT.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I have a friend who did his undergraduate in Economics from St. Bonaventure and his Ph.D. from U. of Chicago. In one discussion, a priest/professor said that human life was invaluable. My friend respond by pulling a nickel from his pocket: “Would you spend a nickel to save a human life?” The priest responded in the afirmative. “Would you spend the entire GNP of the United States?” asked my friend. “No, of course not,” the priest responded. “There you have it.” said my friend. “Somewhere between a nickel and the GNP is the value of a human life.”
I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a politician use the line “if it saves even one human life, it’s worth it”, when they’ve massively overspent billions on some boondoggle (love that word).
Trouble is, you could have probably saved the lives of way more people with billions if you were smart about it.
I noticed Paracelsus made it into the article.
Remember kids: the poison is in the dose.