The Safeguarding of Living Beings: A Question of Choices.

Abstract

Anthropocentric, utilitarian economic science, oriented toward the evaluation of things and people, seems out of place in a conference dedicated to the protection of living beings and its foundational legal, philosophical, and social questions. In this contribution, starting from the writings of Jeremy Bentham on the subject, I will argue that the choice to protect non-human living beings can be the result of an evaluative exercise. From this exercise emerges the convenience of not reducing living beings to mere objects of pleasure for humans; to do otherwise risks laying the foundation for lines of thought and behaviours that could potentially threaten the high value we attribute, or perhaps take for granted, to human life. The reflection will revolve around the Net Present Value formula used in cost-benefit analysis, attempting to demonstrate that it is only the value we assign over time to the individual and collective choices that can lean us toward thoughts and regulations aimed at the maximum protection of non-human living beings. The core theme is that of individual choice and the value each person attributes to it. The distortion toward the commodification and monetization of life is the result of a cultural path in which man is an accomplice rather than a victim, and certainly, this responsibility cannot be attributed to economic science alone.