"Where do you stop?" -Feinberg

So, I want to start off by saying that I really respect Feinberg for what he does, it must be an excruciatingly hard job to do, and I'm sure he's lost a lot of moral character because of it. I felt like I've always had twisted views on compensation, values of lives, and the sort, so this article actually made me feel like someone else agrees with me. (Even though it seemed towards the end+comments that it was attacking Feinberg). There are really three big issues here: 1. Does the fact that Feinberg is not releasing information about higher salaried victims and that he is basically doing 'shady business' reflect how we should act on the issue? 2. Is there a set value that you can place on a human life, or certain aspects of suffering? and finally 3. Should there be a difference between compensation for certain tragedies and not other, or who should get more?

I think the biggest issue here is 'how can you put a value on a human life?' I thought the way Feinberg went about it was just, and fair, and there really isn't a better solution. What other way to determine the value of one's life than by their assumed value to society? I know a lot of people will be discontent with that question, but if that isn't the case, then why are certain jobs paid less for more 'work' than others who are paid more for less 'work? If society was supposed to be fair, it wouldn't be democracy. Another thing is the set value that Feinberg was projecting. So far they said that only 25% of the eligible victims have filed claims, with an expected filing of about 90%; his estimate for this is only ~5 billion dollars, and he expects that it may be significantly higher. $5,000,000,000.00. That is a lot of money on its own, a lot of tax-payer's money. The streets of all major cities in the United States are running with disease and poverty, there are hundreds of thousands of people without health care, and we feel the need to spend five billion dollars on roughly 3,300 families?

This brings me to the sub point of the purpose of funds like this. The article talks about a man whose wife had earned roughly four-hundred thousand dollars a year. When asked whether it be right to give payments of up to ten million dollars to certain families, the man responded, "Absolutely...The idea is to compensate me so my lifestyle doesn't change, and my lifestyle is different from a guy washing dishes. I don't live in a two-hundred-and-fifty-dollar-a-month apartment. I live in a place that costs me five thousand dollars a month in mortgage payments."
This quote really did it for me. Events like 9/11 are called tragedies for a reason. You are never going to walk away from them the same person you were entering them, and your life will never be compensated for what you've lost. It seems that this person wants compensation for his financial support he received from his wife, not for the loss of her life. What is the purpose of a fund like this? The man was already receiving two million dollars. That is roughly 5 years worth of salary from his wife. Is that not time enough to re-establish your life in a way that doesn't impede on it? Maybe it isn't, but the fact remains the same.

What about value? Is it right to give the rich more and the poor less? Absolutely. The fund is not designed to even out the economic well being of victims, is it designed to compensate for what is lost. They calculated that approximately $900,000 would be given to a mother with two children, who was ~40, and made ~20,000/year. That is, assuming the person to still be living by then, 45 years worth of wages. It just astounds me how some people cannot see the justification in this. I think a quote from 298 makes a point here, "people don't care about the money...but somehow the higher the amount...the more meaning it has". Another inconsistency here would be based on age. I think the valid argument is that they are of more benefit to society if they are younger, than if they are older. However, I may slightly disagree with the fact that if they have children then they receive less, as they are supporting more.

To continue the trend of value, what about value of disaster? Should we compensate more based on the severity of the loss? How about the avoidability of it? Take the 9/11 example: There were roughly 3,300 people killed. All of the major wars had tonnes more casualties, but why should we equate war with terrorist attacks? What about natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina? Should we be responsible for paying for the obvious lack of sense in the residents of a hot spot for hurricanes? The same question applies to floods. If there is good reason to expect natural disaster to destroy your residence, why should you stay there? I feel that if you accept the risk, and a high risk at that, that a natural disaster might hit your residence, then you are voiding yourself of all compensation when disaster does strike.

I think the overall shadiness of Feinberg is what turns people to dislike him. He is in charge of distributing money for a fund that is used to protect the Airlines & Co. from being sued. Does the fact that the compensation was designed for this purpose hold any sway in terms of ethical responsibility? I would say no, because the fund itself is treated as a compensatory device to compensate for the economic loss of a loved one. Obviously this does not mean you are set for life, and the government will compensate you what your loved one would have made over a lifetime. However, it does raise suspicions about the intent and the calculations involved. As the article points out, many of the higher paid victims' information will not be released, nor will the formula for calculating losses. That in itself shouts out danger, but I don't think it would be from the lower end of the spectrum, but rather from the higher end. As we've already seen, from the figures they gave us, 45 years worth of wages for the lower class versus the 5 years of wages for the upper class would definitely cause some uproar. Nevertheless, Feinberg uses some formula to determine this, and all we can do is assume it is just compensation, assuming the whole time that there is a price we can put on the life of a loved one.