

I have just attended a debate between Professors Brad Hooker and David Oderberg at Reading University. The topic of debate was whether or not banker’s pay, high pay in particular, was morally justifiable. I would just like to make a commentary on one proposition which Brad Hooker made that I felt was a little frivolous, in retrospect. Obviously, he is a Professor of Philosophy and I am a mere undergraduate and so I am a little anxious as to make frivolity calls in his direction. Nevertheless, the statement has unsettled me for most of the day and sadly he had to teach a class directly after the debate and so I couldn’t question him personally. That being said, like the internet whore that I am, I would like to blog it!
During the Q & A period of the debate the topic of risk taking came up and Brad Hooker made the proposition that the taking of a risk is not morally unjust. This can be said to be true in the case of a stand alone risk made by an individual where only that individual is implicated by the risk itself. However, I belief he forgot to factor in, as is the case with bankers, that where the risk has a probability for negative implications on surplus individuals it can be said to be morally unjust.
For instance, if I decided to take the risk to jump down a flight of stairs and the probability of a negative impact on my state of personal well being was the only factor to consider, then clearly there is no moral question whatsoever. The decision to do that is mine and mine alone. There is no risk of me hurting any other individual and the only issue in question is my sanity. However, if I gathered together a group of ten individuals and had each one of them pay me ten pounds to jump down the flight of stairs, adding the stipulation that I would divide the money equally between the ones that manage to survive the fall without a scratch, whilst the remaining injured parties would recieve nill and feeding all of the individuals “valid” reasons why the should in fact take the plunge, I think there is questionable morality in taking the said risk.
With that little banking analogy, I would like to close by saying that the debate was unexpectedly engaging. As the first debate of term I was expecting a little more of a simplistic topic, but the current issue of the financial climate was a great way to get things started.
That is all.