If It Saves One Life . . .

     Speaking of anti-coronavirus measures, New York governor Andrew Cuomo has been quoted as saying "if everything we do saves just one life, I'll be happy."
     And, to give equal time, Vice-President Pence said "As the President said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking."
     Although politicians have a natural aversion to stating anything in its extreme form, the above statements are evidence that attention is being paid to quite a bold statement: there is a moral imperative to save a life that trumps all other considerations. What are the implications of such a statement?

  "Five-thousand Americans die each year from choking on solid food. We could save every one of those lives by mandating that all meals be pureed. Pureed food isn’t appetizing, but if it saves just one life, it must be worth doing." ~Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan

To this can be added:
 ---35,000 Americans die each year in motor-vehicle-related accidents. We could save every one of those lives by banning motor vehicle travel. Sure, the division of labor and the economy would break down from lack of transportation, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing. (If anyone was thinking that we could replace motor vehicle transport with animal transport, think again. About 100 people a year die in riding or animal-drawn vehicle accidents.)

---About 250 people are killed by trains each year. We could save every one of those lives by closing down the railroads. Sure, the division of labor would break down from lack of transportation, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

---4,000 Americans die each year from drowning. We could save every one of those lives by filling in swimming pools and forbidding people to go near bodies of water over 3" deep. Sure, we'd have to give up seafood, water-borne transport, and the benefits of swimming as exercise, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing. 

---500 Americans die each year from causes related to machinery. We could save every one of those lives by destroying all machines. Sure, we'd have to go back to subsistence agriculture, but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing. 

---2000 Americans are murdered each year with knives. We could save every one of those lives by a manufacturing ban and a program to collect and destroy knives. Sure, you'd have to eat most of your food raw (cutting food into pieces suitable for cooking is an integral part of the cooking process, in case you aren't familiar with the art of cooking), but if it saved just one life, it must be worth doing.

     By now, you probably get the picture and could make up your own examples. The point is that the argument that begins "If it saves just one life . . ." is a ridiculous argument.

     It's truly dismaying that politicians feel they have to cater to this low common denominator. Hopefully, they are overestimating the number of voters who would be swayed by such an argument, but I'm not optimistic!