Frankfurt (1982) further argues that meaning can be gained from losing oneself in work that is meaningful and absorbing to one. However, what if one is using this absorption to harm others: is one's life valuable then? Hitler, for instance, was totally absorbed in his work and found meaning in it: can we say his life was valuable? We can ground the responses not in those of the individual but in those of the community, or in those of people from diverse perspectives (Darwall 1983, chs
The God-centered view is not only that God created person in His image but that he also gave man to purpose with which to conduct his life and that each and every person is important even in a miniscule way. The soul-centered view echoes that of Tolstoy who argued that creating an act of purpose gives life meaning and that to make this difference to the world requires having a soul (Morris 1992, 26)
Other famous postulations of a meaningful life include those by Aristotle who define it as one of the intellect; Marx who sees it as one of alienation, community, and autonomy; Tolstoy who sees it as one of labor; and Nietzsche who defines it as possessing superlative power, creativity, and individuality. Then again, we have Nozick who says that meaningfulness is that which transcends the limits of the (Nozick 1989, chs
Objectivism usually joins up with subjectivism in that it mingles sentiments such as affection, cognition and feelings, with following the 'right path'. This can be captured by Susan Wolf's pithy slogan: "Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness" (Wolf 1997, 211) In a paradoxical sense, this can mean that that life's is meaningless if one absorbs oneself in a program which one is bored by or detests (particularly if one throws one's whole life in that) - even if that program were important
Do you think Ford approached this question properly? The question is should Ford go ahead with the standard design, thereby meeting production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign countries? Ford should have delayed the production of the Pinto for many reasons. Even if one accepts the validity of a cost-benefit analysis that places value on human life, Ford erred when it used a value for human life that was too low (Birsch and Fielder, 1994)
In his instructions to the jury the judge said that Ford should be convicted if it could be shown that it had engaged in "plain, conscious and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result (from its actions) and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct." (Business ethics, an introduction debunking the myths) Unfortunately, the jury found that Ford had not deviated from acceptable standards, saying a lot about the leeway that corporations are given in making business decisions that place profit above human life
Most of this value was based upon future productivity (or earnings potential) losses. Although cost-benefit analysis may be technically legal, jurors have demonstrated a deep- seated prejudice against the use of them in situations involving a potential loss of human lives (Crocker)