Session V: Is There Moral Force to the Identified Victim Bias?





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on May 1, 2012

7th Annual Program in Ethics and Health Conference
Identified vs Statistical Lives - Ethics and Public Policy

Session Chair: Eric Beerbohm
Assistant Professor of Government, Harvard University, and Director of Graduate Fellowships, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University

Norman Daniels, Ph.D.
Mary B. Saltonstall Professor and Professor of Ethics and Population Health, Harvard School of Public Health

Michael Otsuka, D.Phil.
Professor of Philosophy, University College London

Nir Eyal, D.Phil.
Assistant Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School

This conference focuses on how decision makers and the public tend to feel more strongly obligated to assist "identified" people at risk than to assist "statistical" ones, and the implications for public policy. To illustrate, when a group of Chilean miners were stranded following a 2010 mine accident, the rescue mission garnered worldwide support and millions of dollars, but the public had not felt a similar need to invest in mine safety measures that would have saved more statistical lives. What factors trigger or explain this difference in attitude and behavior? How is it manifested when we think about global health problems, such as treatment and prevention (and "treatment as prevention") for HIV/AIDS? Does the law express such bias? Is there any ethical justification for this bias, for example, as a matter of obligation toward each and every individual? Is it, alternatively, a moral error, rooted in well-known cognitive biases?

  • Category

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...