Are you implying that was, somehow, good? Because it was bad. Most major religions / ethical paradigms agree on this.
People, individually, should take risks if that's what they want, and it's not going to hurt others. I'm totally fine with skydiving, base jumping, rock climbing, whatever. I'm not fine with pumping chemicals into the local water table because that's the way Grandpa do.
> if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car
I mean we can do that right now and we don’t.
However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.
So it’s all about balance.
Surely the backup camera wouldn't need to cost that much?
The biggest issue I have, is we allow large organizations to make decisions on difuse/abstract risks - often without owning the liability from those choices, but roll many liabilities up for an individual choice to an organization - its perverse, and should be the other way around.
If I do something that earns me a darwin award at work, my company probably should not be liable for it.
These types of arguments are always so easy when you present everything as insanely black and white.
A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.
I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.