And yet, people and companies undertake activities all the time that involve risks to life, and we do indeed attach a monetary value when those lives are harmed.
Or, alternatively, we do indeed have a cap to the amount of resources we are willing to expend to save a life - lives are not of infinite value.
Wat a completely terrible thing to say. This isn't about saving a life, this is about not killing somebody. Just because a company like Uber thinks it can make a lot of money doen't mean it can simply take risks like these.
Every time you are selling food you take the risk of killing people if something goes wrong. And what about carrying people in planes. These risks are taken continuously, for profit. How is that different?
Both of those industries have tremendous regulations in place to prevent accidents and injuries. If someone gets salmonella poisoning and it is traced back to a company, there is a massive recall at the company's expense. Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation available (statistically) because of the NCTB and the rules/regulations put in place after each and every accident.
Air travel is only safe because companies have taken these risks with people's life. A society that takes no risk is a society that will achieve nothing new.
Air travel and eating food at a resteraunt is an opt-in action. To avoid this risk, you would have to opt-out of using the public road system that you are required to use.
We wouldn't except it if people got killed by selling them poisoned food, at least not where I'm from. Plane crashes are investigated and licenses are suspended and blacklists are kept, furthermore software is tested and verified before it is used in production. We shouldn't except excessive risks, see regulations with truck and bus drivers, just because a profit can be made.
But what makes you think Uber didn't test their software? When Boeing introduces carbon fuselage it is taking risks with people's life. They do reasonable testing but a technology isn't proven until it has been widely used for a long time. No risk = no innovation.
Since there is absolutely no binding federal regulation I don't have a lot of confidence that the level of testing is comparable to what's done for airplanes.
It's all well and good to not like the choice, but the choices still have to be made - how much are we willing to give up economically in order to reduce immediate risk to lives? Included in this must be the consideration that economic value can be used to save lives, through higher living standards and better health care.
Did you ever take an engineering ethics course? One of the things talked about is the monetary value placed on a human life. You can't make that value infinitely high or literally nothing can happen. You also don't want it super low.
Or, alternatively, we do indeed have a cap to the amount of resources we are willing to expend to save a life - lives are not of infinite value.