the value of not saving a life is the same as the value of killing someone
If you found someone in the process of killing another, what actions would you be willing to undertake to stop them? Would you be willing to undertake those same actions every time you found someone whose non-subsistence expenditures exceeded $X, the minimum expenditure necessary to [buy enough malaria nets, etc… to] have an expected outcome of one life saved?
Even consequentialism is supposed to acknowledge that ethical rules need to be evaluated in terms of their long-term consequences rather than just their immediate outcomes.
If you found someone in the process of killing another, what actions would you be willing to undertake to stop them? Would you be willing to undertake those same actions every time you found someone whose non-subsistence expenditures exceeded $X, the minimum expenditure necessary to [buy enough malaria nets, etc… to] have an expected outcome of one life saved?
Even consequentialism is supposed to acknowledge that ethical rules need to be evaluated in terms of their long-term consequences rather than just their immediate outcomes.