> how we (the society) justify the shared costs incurred in searching for people involved in such a reckless mission
Nobody asked me if I want to pay for it or not. So i don’t feel that the “we” is justified. But if they would have asked me i would have voted to not move a finger unless some private entity (the company or the families, or literally anyone who wants to) pays for it.
They went out of their way to do something knowingly recklesly dangerous, and the cost of any rescue attempt is enermous.
So who gets to arbitrate whether some activity is "unnecessarily" dangerous? I'm sure I do things that some people who mostly stick to good weather urban activities would consider unreasonably dangerous.
I understand. I’m not doubting that. What I’m saying is that I don’t need to justify anything. The people who have control over spending the money or not need to justify it. And since that is a very small set of people I don’t feel it is fair to ask how “we “ justify it.
But even in a hypothetical where the government sent out a snap poll saying “Sup citizen. 5 fellas lost in a sub. Need $140m for rescue attempt. Send yay or nay.” I would have responded with “nay”. So even in that hypothetical I wouldn’t feel I need to justify why we should spend money to rescue these people. (By the by, this hypothetical sounds crazy, but we could totally have this kind of direct say in matters. We have the tech for it.)
Nobody asked me if I want to pay for it or not. So i don’t feel that the “we” is justified. But if they would have asked me i would have voted to not move a finger unless some private entity (the company or the families, or literally anyone who wants to) pays for it.
They went out of their way to do something knowingly recklesly dangerous, and the cost of any rescue attempt is enermous.