• grahamsz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 年前

    Sure - and i’m sure I could find people who’d play a game of russian roulette for $1M but it’d be massively unethical to hire people to do that.

    So there’s obviously some line - as a society we consider it ethical to hire forestry workers or deep sea fishermen even though they have a significantly higher risk of death that most other professions. I think a 25% death rate is just unethical in the extreme, even Everest is something like 1%.

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 年前

      Everest appears to be 5%. Where would you draw the line, and how would you justify it?

      • grahamsz@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 年前

        I have no idea, but hiring someone for a job that has a 1 in 20 chance of killing them seems fundamentally immoral - especially given the massive financial imbalance.

        It’s certainly a good philosophical question though

        • wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 年前

          Yeah, taking it to the extreme, the same logic applies to delivery guys on scooters and motorcycles. There’s definitely no good answer, except maybe that they accepted the risk

          • grahamsz@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 年前

            Looking at it more, there seems to be an entire field of Risk Ethics associated with this.

            Still the most dangerous job in the US is a Commercial Fisherman with a risk of death of 132 per 100,000. That’s a very long way from the risk of dying on Everest or K2.