Cost-benefit analysis is an important tool for policy makers as it helps them make the right decision to undertake projects on large scale which will require capital expenditure less than the benefit. It usually evaluates the total expense that can be incurred in carrying out the project against the total expected benefit in order to determine whether the project is worth pursuing by the company. (Ackermann, 2008). At least three criticisms of cost-benefit analysis will be outlined in this essay. Making public policy decisions is a challenging and complicated process due to less time and resources. But in 2018 it would only be possible if you could assign monetary values ​​directly to all the costs and benefits of a proposed project or policy, and then everything would be simple and transparent. In reality, in practice the picture is usually different as sometimes the measurement of costs and benefits becomes complex and requires detailed processes and calculations which sometimes lose transparency and often also objectivity. (Ackerman, 2008). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay First, one of the criticisms of cost-benefit analysis used by politicians is the price of the priceless. When evaluating the costs and benefits of health and environmental policies, usually only the monetary value of the final stage is considered. For example, in the case of a company emitting carbon dioxide gases into the atmosphere, politicians only calculate the costs and benefits of the final process, but do not attach a monetary value to the losses of species damaged by the gases, and it is also difficult to put a value on them monetary for the people surrounded by the area that can affect their lives. This will occur if the preservation of human life and the natural system is not valued, as they will remain mere warning labels attached to incomplete numerical calculations. The philosopher Immanuel Kant states that something has a relative price or value while other things have dignity. The failure of cost-benefit analysis in philosopher Immanuel Kant's terms attempts to weigh costs which usually have price and benefits usually have dignity. But in everything money is all that matters, priceless benefits are valued at zero by default. (Ackerman, 2008). Second, another criticism of cost-benefit analysis concerns trade-offs. Anything can be exchanged for anything else that can be measured in money such as cars, computers, and many others that could be fairly exchanged for each other. This assumption is usually misleading and disturbing as artificial prices are applied to the non-monetary fundamental values ​​of life, health and nature. For example, if you invest $100, after one year you will receive $300.00, it would mean that you are a successful investor. But if a policy kills 100 people now to save 400 later, there is no way to bring back the lives of 100 people, it would be unethical. This implies that different scenarios will be recorded depending on what politicians consider beneficial for society. (Ackerman, 2008). Third, Uncertainty and precaution is another criticism of cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis usually requires a defined monetary value for the comparison of costs and benefits. Many environmental policies are uncertain because they cannot actually determine the exact amount of costs and benefits. Taking into account this uncertainty, it is impossible to quantify the benefits of the environmental protection project. In reality, it is usually complex and uncertain, 2017).