Aiden

In the 1990s, Phillip Morris commissioned a study showing that smoking actually saved the Czech government money. Because smokers tended to die earlier, the state spent less on pensions and elderly healthcare, freeing public funds for other social investments. By strict cost-benefit logic, the conclusion seemed rational: if the goal is to maximize overall welfare, premature death was good for the budget. When the study became public, it was met with immediate outrage. Politicians, health advocates, and ordinary citizens condemned it not because the math was wrong, but because reducing human lives to a number felt like a profound moral violation. It raised an uncomfortable question: should justice really be nothing more than a calculation of the greatest benefit for the greatest number? The discomfort we feel toward that conclusion suggests that something is missing from pure utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, and that conflict extends to modern law and policy. 

Governments restrict individual freedom in the name of public health or national security; courts debate whether affirmative action promotes justice or violates equality; legislatures struggle to balance autonomy and protection in abortion policy. In each case, decision-makers must weigh consequences against principles, legality against morality, and collective benefit against individual rights. From these tensions emerges a deeper, fundamental question: what is justice, and can we reason our way to it?

WATCH HERE