Sir, – It’s easy to find distasteful the practice that occurs in the “life settlement” industry of acquiring life assurance policies as investments and being able to increase profits when people die sooner than expected. But, as Joe Humphreys points out (Rite & Reason August 21st), it’s less easy to argue cogently against it.
However, lest we forget, such arguments exist within philosophical ethics. Kant’s argument, for one, supports always treating people as free and equal in having rationality and will, and never simply using them as a means for our own advantage. And it’s questionable, at least, that you could treat people instrumentally by, in effect, gambling on the prospect of their early death, and at the same time have due regard for them as free and equal human beings.
Kant’s argument is for a duty of respect for others and oneself, an argument which underpins the modern understanding of human rights. While faults have been found with it, his and other arguments do, at least, proffer rational grounds for distinguishing between right and wrong. Without such grounds, as Kant noted, we leave morality “looking like anything you please”. With all that has gone wrong morally in Irish society, and at such cost, we would do well to invest in a thorough-going education in ethics at all levels and in the professions. – Yours, etc,