Question

Lawrence Summers served as secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration and as director of National Economic Council in the Obama administration. He has been quoted as giving the following moral defense of the economic approach. ​"There is nothing morally unattractive about​ saying: We need to analyze which way of spending money on health care will produce more benefit and which​ less, and using our money as efficiently as we can. I​ don't think there is anything immoral about seeking to achieve environmental benefits at the lowest possible​ costs." ​Source: David​ Wessel, "Precepts from Professor​ Summers," Wall Street Journal​, October​ 17, 2002. It would be more moral to reduce​ pollution, A. taking the cost into account because the total cost of reducing pollution is likely enormous. B. taking the cost into account because reducing pollution often reduces economic growth. C. not taking the cost into account because pollution is potentially harmful to our health. D. taking the cost into account because money spent on pollution reduction is not available for other worthy activities. E. not taking the cost into account because pollution reduction is typically associated with large benefits.

Answer 1

Answer:

The correct option is D: taking the cost into account because money spent on pollution reduction is not available for other worthy activities

Explanation:

According to Lawrence Summers analysis, every spend for healthcare needs to be beneficial to the economy at the lowest possible cost. Hence looking at it from his point of view, it would be more moral to reduce pollution, looking at the cost of doing this. This is because there are other aspects that need money and if this money is spent on pollution without considering other areas, then there would not be enough money available for other worthy activities.