← New Books Network
New Books Network
Ariel Colonomos, "Pricing Lives: The Political Art of Measurement" (Oxford UP, 2023)
00:44:34
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:00]
Alia Colonymos
Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month. 2. Seriously, it's $15 a month. 3.
- [00:13]
Commercial Announcer 1
No big contracts.
- [00:14]
Alia Colonymos
4.
- [00:15]
Leo Bader
I use it.
- [00:15]
Alia Colonymos
5.
- [00:16]
Commercial Announcer 1
My mom uses it.
- [00:16]
Alia Colonymos
Are you. Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right?
- [00:19]
Leo Bader
Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com switch upfront.
- [00:23]
Commercial Announcer 2
Payment of $45 per 3 month plan $15 per month equivalent required new customer offer first 3 months only then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra.
- [00:29]
Commercial Announcer 1
See mintmobile.com this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
- [00:58]
Commercial Announcer 2
Attention all small biz owners at the UPS Store. You can count on us to handle your packages with care with our certified packing experts. Your packages are properly packed and protected and with our Pack and Ship guarantee. When we pack it and ship it, we guarantee it because your items arrive safe or you'll be reimbursed. Visit theupsstore.com guarantee for full details. Most locations are independently owned. Products, services, pricing and hours of operation may vary. See center for details. The UPS Store Be unstoppable. Come into your local store today.
- [01:29]
Commercial Announcer 3
Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:34]
Leo Bader
Welcome to the New Books Network. My name is Leo Bader and today I'm talking to Adieu Colonymos, CNRS Research professor at Sciences PO and Senior Researcher at the center for International Research. Ali's new book, Pricing the Political Art of Measurement, takes the ubiquitous practice of putting a price on human life, whether to save it as in the case of developing vaccines or healthcare, or to expend it as in the case of war, and argues that this act of measurement lies at the core of political life. Drawing on a broad set of examples, the book traces the pricing of lives from before the dominance of the modern state into our own state dominated world and finishes by offering thoughts on how we should go about pricing lives. Aliyah, thanks for coming on. It's a fascinating book.
- [02:25]
Alia Colonymos
Thank you. Thank you very much Leo, for having me here.
- [02:28]
Leo Bader
Well, why don't you start by telling us what the impetus was for writing this book and how you began to think about pricing lives as this core political element.
- [02:40]
Alia Colonymos
Well, I started to work on ethical dilemmas in global politics and notably on cases such as reparations for historical injustices. And also in the aftermath of 9 11, on ethical dilemmas in warfare such as proportionality, for example, that I discuss also in the book. And other cases followed, such as the case of hostage taking, notably, well, in the aftermath of the freeing of Gilad Shali, the Israeli hostage that was held by Hamas and was freed in 2011. And in each of those cases I came to realize that what were at stake were essentially two primary goods. And those goods were human lives on the one hand, and interests, whether political or economic interests. And so I wanted to understand the relation between those two goods. And also, another thing that led me into this project is that I was struck by the fact that over the last 20 years, Moron claims developed as a very strong counterweight vis a vision interest based objectives. And those moral things rely primarily on the value of human lives. And actually, it's a question that I explored in the book the Moralization of International Politics that I published in 2005, which is called Moralizing International Relations Called to Account. And already this idea of accounting counting was there. And also what I came to realize in the Ethics of War, which was the domain where I was working there was a sort of a blind spot because usually what we do in this area, we basically use moral philosophy in order to assess political decisions. But I think that, well, that is a moral discussion of warfare. But I think that these issues needed to be addressed from a normative perspective, from a more political one that is both political and normative. So that's how I came to this project.
- [05:28]
Leo Bader
It's this interrelationship between interests and lives, as you say, that is kind of the core engine of your book. So maybe if you can elaborate a little bit what that looks like and how we can kind of use it to think about specific cases, then.
- [05:46]
Alia Colonymos
Exactly. I mean, in all these different cases, such as, well, the measurement of use of force, well, basically it comes to very practical things, which is, well, what kind of bomb do you use when you're engaging aerial warfare? And how do you repair historical injustices? What are the concessions you're ready to make in order to free hostages? Or what kind of confinement you're ready to enforce in times of pandemic? Well, you always need to put in balance basically human lives and, and an interest. And I was knowing that, seeing that, I wanted to understand exactly what was the political equation that was there at the center of this decision. And in all these different areas, you could see that in some cases, basically those who are in the capacity to make decisions, may decide to make material concessions in order to save human lives that they will make or concession vis their own interest in order to save lives. And, and, and that is what I, what, what, what I call paying four lives. But so yeah, again, if you want to free, if you want to, to, to get, I mean to, to free a hostage, well, you will decide that you will make either you, you may pay some, some money or you can make political concessions vis a vis your interests, free some prisoners that you have, for example. And so that's paying four lives is one aspect. But you also have another aspect which is that in some cases you decide to prioritize your interest vis a vis human lives and you will decide that you will pay with lives the pursuit of your interest. You may decide, for example in the face of hostage taking not to make any compromise. And therefore the life of the hostage will be sacrificed because you want to preserve your interest. When you engage in warfare and you decide to use 2,000 pound pounds bombs, were those civilians who will die because of the bomb that will be killed unintentionally, but you can foresee that they will be killed, they will pay with their lives the pursuit of your interest. So that equation, that is when you balance lives with interest, this balancing is based on a dual equation. That is you pay for lives and you pay with lives and states and also political communities and markets to some extent. But as in the political, the state is the core actor. Well, states do that all the time.
- [09:38]
Leo Bader
It's a very intuitive equation when you think about it, that it's really is kind of everywhere once you start looking through the lens of interests and lives and you argue that it's not only a sort of outcome of political life, but that this equation actually creates, that it constitutes political life. So why does it lie at the core like that?
- [10:08]
Alia Colonymos
There are many, there are many reasons why this is so central. And again in the book there are four chapters, four cases that I discuss. But as you said, there's so many other areas where you could see that at play. I mean I haven't studied in the book, but other examples come to mind, such as environmental policies, economic sanctions, international aid, there are so many. But so privacy lies to me is constitutive of the political, the political defined as a system. And that is for a certain number of substantial reasons. Well, first of all. Well, as we just mentioned mention, it is recurrent. That is it happens so many times and you can see that in so many different countries, in so many western political system and to some extent also in some non Western states. So there is a high degree of recurrence. The second reason is that. And it's. It not only happens often, but it's. It's highly spectacular. That is creates this balancing process, creates a polarizing debate and it creates a really a public space of discussion and deliberation. It mobilizes people attention since, I mean, this is exactly what we are concerned the most with, that is human lives and our interests. And also it's spectacular because there's a contrast between them. That is, we know that in the case of hostage taking, in the case of COVID I mean, we know that there is this equilibrium to be found, but at the same time we are unease and that makes it even more intriguing. And that's why we talk about it also so much. Another reason why it is constitutive of the political is that it's very much consistent with also a certain definition of responsibility set in Weberian term, consequentialist responsibility. You're responsible as a political leader, as an institution of the consequences of your action. It is also consistent with another very different tradition actually, in terms of political philosophy, which is the notion of balance and finding the proper balance, which you find mostly in Greek philosophy. And it is consistent with a vision of the political aspect, a highly contextual political equilibrium. And so this balancing gives you a great margin of maneuver since, I mean, the preferences that orient these balances, they change over time. And that's also what I argue in the book, is that, for example, as compared to the past, we pay for lives more than we did in the past, and we pay with lives less than we did in the past. And that's because values and norms change.
- [13:57]
Leo Bader
And do you think this implies a flaw or a difficulty in looking at lives starting from a moral stance or starting from principles and then saying that lives are priceless because if we are to have any sort of political life, we have to price them. Or pricing is sort of inherent in that political life. And so adopting a completely moral standpoint kind of erases one side of what lives actually are.
- [14:30]
Alia Colonymos
Oh yes, exactly. I mean, that's why, I mean this pricing lives is set in political terms, not in moral terms. What is interesting is that of course, moral philosophy has raised this question, and most often, not always, but most often, you find this idea that life has an infinite value from a principal perspective, from a Kantian perspective, there is no way that you can put a price tag to a human life life. And so in religion, for example, the value, whether what comes to my mind are the examples of Judaism and Islam. I mean, the value of life is infinite. And so in moral philosophy there's a huge debate on the question of the commodification of life, of human life. And some argues that some exchange are blocked, that is that there are some issues that you cannot buy. There's a huge discussion in this area. Other, other moral philosopher will be more flexible and utilitarians, for example, will, yes, will try to aggregate different variables. So why not aggregate lives and economic or economic interest? So I mean in philosophy there are more restrictions and in politics, I mean, things play differently. The material dimension of our social lives is extremely important and political leaders need to factor interest. And at the same time they do worry for vis a vis questions of justice and equality and therefore balancing. But there's really a difference from a moral perspective and from a normative and political perspective, which is what I try to develop. And in some cases the two collapse, such as in consequentialism.
- [17:03]
Leo Bader
Well, why don't we look at some examples then you start looking at before the emergence or the dominance of states and you use Shakespeare to look at that. So how do we see the pricing of lives in Shakespeare? And how does this give us a window into sort of pre modern political life?
- [17:26]
Alia Colonymos
Well, first of all, I think that literature most of all, I mean major authors are really extremely important when you write philosophy or political theory. They're part of our education now. I think that Shakespeare, since he has put so much focus in his work on the idea of measure and on the idea of measurement, was really the ideal author when trying to see in other realms than academic scholarship how these things play out. And I was really struck by two major plays, My Shaykh Fiber by Shakespeare, which are the Merchant of Venice and Henry V. And the reason why I was so much interested in those plays is that first of all, because the question of measure, of the measure of human lives is absolutely central in both plays. And it is central from two different perspective. One, the Merchant of Venice takes place in times of peace and Henry V takes place in times of war. And the other reason why I found these two Shakespeare's work so interesting is that it happens in a pre modern world. I mean, modern world defined by a world regulated by the state, but a pre modern world that exists just before the modern state develops. Let's say that the transition is operated in the 17th century and much of Venice and Henry V just 15th century, sort of maybe Henry V time period is late 15th century century. And let's Imagine that the Merchant of Venice would take place in this early 16th century. And well, in those two plays, I mean, the value of human lives is really the core element of the play. I mean it's Antonio's pound of flesh. Shylock claimed that because of the contract that Antonio and him sign, I mean he has the right to claim that pound of flesh and the whole structure of Venice is put in jeopardy and the whole system, the political system could crumble. I mean, if really that pound of flesh were given to Antonio. And whereas for Henry V, I mean, what I found extremely interesting and here in my book, I refer to the work of the lawyer Theodore Mehron who has written extensively on Henry V and the laws of war. And what is extremely striking in this play is that you see how a leader would measure the use of force of his army and how he will make an assessment of what are the consequences in terms of the loss of human lives and in terms of the pursuit of his interests when he wages war. The norm that today are that are codified and predominate, such as the norm of proportionality are not there yet. But you see a sort of pre system of rules that basically rely on honor and on codes of honor. But you see how a three state political system basically juggles with the question of balancing of lies versus interest. And to some extent Henry V is an announcement of the future rules that will develop through that will develop once the nation state become the central political order.
- [22:40]
Commercial Announcer 3
The summer has ended and fall is upon us. Days are getting shorter, it's getting cooler and you probably want to make your space cozier. And Wayfair is the place you should go to do it. It's really the trusted destination for all things home. Because Wayfair has everything you need to cozify your space. I know that in my case I wanted to spruce up my home office. So I went to Wayfair and I got some things. I got a new lamp and a new chair and I got some things to store the items that I use on my desk. I'm a busy person just like you are, so I really appreciate it. They deliver you as fast and free. So now's really the best time for you to prepare for the fall and decozify your house. And you should go to Wayfair to do it. There's lots of things there. Bedding and bath basics, storage for every space, kitchen essentials, chairs and lamps. Or you can refresh your living room with recliners and autumn and seasonal rug. You don't have to go to multiple stores, you can just go to Wayfair and get everything you need. Cozify your space with Wayfair's curated collection of easy, affordable fall updates. Find it all for way less@wayfair.com that's W a Y-F-A-I-R.com Wayfair every style, every home.
- [23:44]
Commercial Announcer 1
At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Because@blinds.com, the only, the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 45% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.
- [24:13]
Leo Bader
Well, let's talk about the nation state then. I imagine that when it emerges, perhaps on the part of citizens, you have more of an expectation than in the pre modern era that the state works for citizens and improves their lives. Perhaps, but then also through the construction of the nation, maybe more of an ability or a willingness to also pay in lives to advance the interests of the state. So how do we see that?
- [24:49]
Alia Colonymos
Well, the difference with a free state world is that decisions are more codified and they rely less on the personality of the leaders. Henry V plays, he's in command and he sets the rules and is unpredictable and he plays with that. Whereas with the emergent of a state, you need to build an administrative bureaucracy that has guidelines. Of course those guidelines can be interpreted, but that has a framework, a legal framework. The 17th century is the moment. Well, along with the development of the nation states, the laws of war emerge and develop. This is the time when Gentili Grossius, et cetera and all the authors of the just war tradition buried those build those rules. So you need to construct a system when there is a certain minimum regularity in terms of knowing what rules will be applied. And also the political, as you said, has to aggregate the preferences, the values, the interests of the people. And they have to do that within a body politic. And that's the reason why, and I use this term on purpose, that's the reason why I was so much struck by the frontispiece of Hobbes work, the body politic, where you see this character holding on one hand a scale that are a symbol of justice on the other hand, a squirt. And you see the balancing of light vis a vis interest on this very picture. And the character himself is composed of individuals. So that means that this balancing is central for the equilibrium of the system. And that's how a state function. A state has to think about the equilibrium and he has to think right, because otherwise if he makes wrong calculations, the whole system can crumble.
- [27:19]
Leo Bader
And you mentioned earlier then that alongside the state we also have markets and communities that are involved in pricing lives. And I'm curious whether you think that there's sort of a tension between these three different areas and that they might have different approaches or different priorities and how they price lives, yet they might be pricing the same lives. One person can be involved in a state and a market and a community all at the same time. So how does that interaction work?
- [27:57]
Alia Colonymos
So pricing lives can, can occur in different spaces. The moment when a social realm has both resources and knowledge and values that can be applied to the measurement of the value of human lives. That system is able to produce a decision that is the reflection of that mechanism when you put in balance lives and an interest. So of course, again, because that's the world where we live in, the state is the most, is the predominant player. But along with the state, there are other places, such as markets and communities, where that pricing occurs. For example, I mean, in book I discuss some of the metrics that are used in markets, such as the value of statistical lives. And what is the value of statistical lives is a sort of metric that insurance companies use, but also states use. That metric is, well, the value of a life is, is high when people accept to spend a high amount of money in order to protect themselves from a danger that is set in probabilistic terms and that has a low probability. And so within a market you can price the value of human lives. And insurance companies that sell policies to individuals, well, they use that metrics, but states that for example, when they build roads and airports, etc. Well, they use that metric when they compare the value or the pricing of the lives of those people that might perish because of the fact that a road is in bad condition, they will compare it to, to build, to the price of building a new road, for example. So I mean, states and markets can also work together. But of course, sometimes there are these discrepancies and communities also, I mean, have, might have, might have a voice in that discussion. Well, I discussed the case of hostages in my book and I also refer to debates both in Judaism and in Israel. And I mean, there's a whole discussion in the Talmud around the value of the lives of hostages and the payment of ransoms. It is a complex question, but there are clear passages in the Talmud where authors would argue that you need to pay a ransom to save members of the Jewish community. That's a moral obligation. At the same time, they also say that you ought not to pay any price. But the focus is on paying the price. Well, you can imagine that a state, whether Israel or another state, might decide that, no, they don't want to compromise and that either the price is too high or simply they would not negotiate with a hostage taker whom they would consider to be a terrorist. And so these are also practical questions. When you think about what's going on in Gaza and when you think about the hostage situation, I mean, these are debates that take place all the time. And so communities have their own vision of what is the. How can you, how can you measure the. The value of, Of. Of a human life? And also sometimes, I mean, can you, can you price a human or a human? Now, let's imagine that you have committed a murder and you, you instead of going to jail, you want to compensate the family of the person, of the person who has been assassinated. Is that possible? Did this happen? I mean, this is basically a tradition called the Fair Geld, which was a German tradition in the Middle Ages, but this is also an Islamic tradition, the Diya. So, I mean, communities have their own way of looking both at justice and at the question of valuing life. And of course, sometimes this can clash with a state order, which we see.
- [33:47]
Leo Bader
Perhaps very clearly right now in Israel that there are different subsets of the Israeli population that have different views on what approach the state should take to the hostages.
- [34:02]
Alia Colonymos
Absolutely. I mean, and they are strong clashes and they're very radical opinions. And. Well, take an example of one community. I mean, sociologically, I mean, you can create also a community. And the family of hostages have created a community. They gather through rituals every week. And within their community, of course you need to pay the ransom, of course you need to compensate. The state, as for now, wants to follow its interest and sometimes marginally at least, negotiate in order to sort of keep that very unstable equilibrium. And then you also have in Israel people that openly says that what matters the most are security interests. And supposedly they believe that by not negotiating and that continuing the war, this would favor their interest, although they don't really define exactly what those interests are. But so of course, there are always tensions. The case of hostage and this goes also beyond Israel. I mean, even in France, I mean, we've had hostages, have hostages are taken abroad. And there are different ways of looking at things because we have different values. But ultimately the state is in the driver's seat. But the state has to take into account those other voices.
- [35:43]
Leo Bader
Another key element that you talk about is distance, that we find it harder to value lives that are distant, whether that's across time, future lives or distance, or also cultural distance. So maybe elaborate on that. And then I'm also curious if this kind of poses a fundamental challenge to any sort of cosmopolitan view of structuring the world, if that kind of lower valuing of distant lives is so inherent to kind of human perception.
- [36:24]
Alia Colonymos
Yes, because I have been dealing with in the book mostly with international issues, but from a state perspective, since states are the most predominant actor of the political system. And I wanted to define that political equation. However, it struck me as something very unfair that lives at a distance would be and are discounted and life at a distance distance in geographical terms, but also in temporal terms, that is future lives, for example. And so I was struggling with that question and also I was struggling with the fact that you see that there are so many inequalities in terms of the resources that you are ready to use in order to, to save people from your community, whether you belong to a state or another. And it might be related to inequality, resources, poverty. For example, you have less resources, so people are more in danger than if you have more resources, than if you have more resources to help them. But in some cases it's not only related to poverty. For example, going back to the case of hostages, depending of the country you belong to, you are more chances to be rescued in case of hostage taking. Actually the case of Israel is interesting because usually not in the case of Gaza, because for the remaining hostages, the political interest at stake are too high from the, as defined from the perspective of the actual Israeli government. But usually Israel does negotiate. But there are countries that have always been reluctant to making concessions in terms of hostage taking, such as, for example, the uk The UK has become recently more flexible. For example, it has negotiated the liberation of one of its citizens, actually a binational citizen that was held hostage in Tehran. But it has a long standing tradition of inflexibility and of really a clear reluctance vis a vis negotiation. And that's a form of inequality. It's a lottery to some extent. So what do you do? I mean, I am not in favor of, of the sort of full cosmopolitan and utilitarian position according to which you don't have to make any difference in terms of, I mean, how distant a person is, whether in time or in, or from a spatial, geographical perspective or temporal perspective when it comes to, to put resources to save that person. I believe that states, I mean, I'm thinking about the world we live in right now, not the world we would like to live in, but as far as we are concerned, in the world that we live in, states are defined as organizations that have primary responsibility vis a vis their citizens. And it would be very hard, it's the whole notion of the state that would crumble. It would be very hard for a state to say that it has the same duties vis a vis citizens that are not its citizens, then the same duties vis a vis done than the duties that it has vis a vis its own or citizens. So having having said that, I do believe that more needs to be done and that you need to find a new, a new equilibrium where you would revalue the lives of those people who are not your citizens and the lives of those people are whom you can predict will be born in the future persons. But that doesn't mean that you will have to employ exactly the same resources. You just need to move at another level. And that's where global actors need to come into play. And that's why I believe that what we need is a cooperation between states that would in many different areas. For example, going back to practical case, the case of hostage taking, they would need to coordinate themselves and instead of leading the nation state solely in command, we should find solution where states develop a common policy that will address the question of hostages. I mean, I'm thinking about again going back to Gaza. When Hamas took more than 200 people as hostages in Gaza, there were people from different nationalities and would have been very important in terms of justice and maybe in terms of efficiency. As for the release of the hostage, if there were some kind of negotiation between states and the UN actually is very much against that kind of decision because of course there are many different interests at play within that kind of international organization. But I think that in this area, as in many other areas, such as take the example of migration or the example of refugee because of natural disaster and so on, I believe that what would be important in those cases is to build the framework for a global insurance. And this is something that is lacking and this cannot be made solely at the state level. It needs to be part of cooperative dynamics that aggregate the different, that aggregate states altogether.
- [44:08]
Leo Bader
Unfortunately, we have to wrap it up there, but there is a lot more in the book, so I would recommend that everybody read it. Alia's book Pricing the Political Art of Measurement can be purchased through the link on the New Books Network. If you are interested in more, he has a few other books including Selling the the Perils of Predicting Global Politics, the Gamble of War and Moralizing International Relations called to Account. Avie, thanks again for joining me.
- [44:37]
Alia Colonymos
Thank you. Thank you very much. Neil.