When looking through the chapter of Utilitarianism in the book by Sandel, the main idea that stuck out the most to me was the question on whether or not human life has a price; or if it most certainly does, do we need to admit it? This idea that all goods can be measured and compared on a single scale, including the good of life brings me back to the earlier real life question raised by Sandel on whether or not the Purple Heart should be bestowed to PTSD war victims as well.
When looking back on the Purple Heart question the most interesting thing that stood out to me was the statement that these recipients received more special treatment within veteran facilities. I wonder if when giving the award to one who has been physically injured if we are addressing the fact that this is a physically fixable tragedy, therefore it could cost less money for us to fix it than to try and fix mental tragedies such as PTSD that can and will persist throughout life. Is there a higher monetary value placed on PTSD victims but a lower social or moral value of them as heroes who fought in a war and therefore they receive no special award and do not get any special treatment within facilities? Do you think that is the case, that they put an amount on human life and on human sacrifice and gave it to the one that would be more economically friendly to society (ie not cost as much money to "take care of"). Do you think that there is only one scale in which we can possibly compare and measure goods and values, or is there something else? What would it be that it could still extend so far?
Great Post!
ReplyDeleteI doubt that there is a lower social/moral value placed on veterans suffering from PTSD, but I do think we're still in this backwards Greco-Roman perspective when it comes to war. We're all about brute strength and who's got the most guns... everything's a PHYSICAL display of power/dominance. I don't even know if we as a whole understand the debilitizing effects of PTSD or any mental (for a lack of a better term) disorder, for that matter. Not in a public-relations sense anyway.
I love the point you bring out concerning economics. It's quicker, cheaper, and all around convenient-er to take care of the physically disabled than trying to observe, research, and individualize the care a victim of PTSD would require. Living in the Capitalist mindset, I've almost no doubts that that IS the reason we refuse to recognize a huge population of veterans.
I don't know if this means that "the almighty THEY" are placing a value on human life or sacrifice, but in a sense I agree that they are. 'They' decided to go with the less-expensive care package, so by neglecting the PTSD folks, 'They' alienate them further, neglect their needs, and *make* those individuals not worth as much as those with physical disabilities. This is a ranking more than it is an out-and-out value.
I agree with your point that those who decide the qualifications for the Purple Heart do consider economic factors, because obviously more tax dollars or federal funding (or however veteran hospitals receive funds) would be used to treat the patients with PTSD because they do require more help and attention. However, I don't think that should eliminate them from the possibility of receiving the honor of the Purple Heart. In an ideally moral world, that would make them all the more eligible. I'm in no way downplaying the tragedy of a physical injury or disability as a result of war, but I don't agree with the opinion that those with mental injuries are weak and haven't sacrificed as much because they certainly have. Soldiers who come home with mental or emotional injuries or disabilities such as PTSD have sacrificed their mental well-being, quite possibly permanently. If a perk of receiving the Purple Heart is treatment at a veteran hospital, why shouldn't these soldiers be considered for eligibility as well? Just because it would cost more to treat them?
ReplyDelete