{Recent conversations with people have lead me to consider the value of human life.}
What value does a single life hold? It has been said that if you add up the monetary value found in one human body the total would be about $4.50. This doesn't really make you worth very much. At that rate you are certainly replaceable. (http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp)
Beliefs about the value of human life boil down to two systems: contingent value and inherent value. Contingent value makes the value of a human life dependant upon variables. Therefore the value is conditional. On the side of inherent value, life's value is a quality that cannot be removed. The value of human life is permanent and consistent; it cannot be separated or changed. Inherent value simply is.
Contingent value has a long history and finds many supporters in various philosophies. One characteristic that these groups share is the desire to impose their own pursuits upon others (to elevate themselves or their group to some advantage). These form their own variables upon which they measure the value of a life. The ancient Greek Stoics found value through virtues. Those who did not poses these "virtues" were not considered worth as much. Those who were ill, maned, disabled, orphaned, etc were considered unable to posses these "virtues" and were thus not valuable.
The Stoics, however, were not alone in their philosophy. Many ancient peoples placed similar conditional value on life. The ancient philosophers valued "virtuous men." These men of virtue were mostly comprised of the educated, or those connected by specific kinship or state citizenship. Confucianism taught the suppression of individual differences for the greater common good. Value was here placed upon the group good, leaving the individual little or no value. Hitler taught that value could be based upon a person's European blood line.
Fundamentally, contingent value leads to oppression. Slavery, caste systems, the Holocaust, and mistreatment of the disabled, ill, or orphaned all arise from the belief that the value of human life is dependant upon a set of variables.
Taken even further, to the ultimate result, contingent value does not allow society to react to ones personal choices which may effect the quality or status of life. This means that anti-drug or self mutilation laws have no basis. What one chooses to do to or with ones life is based upon their own set of variables. Variables by their very nature can change. Thus we can also not speak against murder or genocide when they are based upon dependant variables. "Without inherent value in human life, at most these acts would be socially impolite or culturally distasteful, but never objectively wrong." (http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/the-inherent-value-of-human-life/)
Inherent value also has a long historical tradition. The Hebrews, and their forefathers, were the first to assign unconditional value on human life. While the Hebrews believed in just punishment of the guilty, the Talmud taught that innocent life should be guarded, even at the cost of other lives. The Torah also held that all life should be valued while the quality of life should never be a factor in its preservation. Jewish tradition mandates the preservation of all life (Jewish legal sources call this pikuach nefesh). One source puts it this way "When one destroys a single individual, it is as if that person destroyed the whole world. (Sanhedrin 4:5)" (http://judaism.about.com/library/3_intro/level2/bl_war.htm)
This belief is illustrated by the story of David and his punishment of the messenger who brought news of the death of King Saul. The messenger claimed to have happened upon Saul while he lay wounded on the battle field. Saul called out to the man and asked him to end his life that he might no longer suffer. The messenger hoped that by claiming to have taken the life of Saul himself he would secured for himself favor with David who's life had been relentlessly sought after by Saul. David, however, valued the life of Saul and was greatly distressed by the news of Saul's death. "And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?" (II Samuel 1:14, KJV) It was obvious that King Saul would have eventually died of his wounds or by the hand of the enemy army which was in hot pursuit of the Hebrews. Yet David was horrified by the messengers boldness to judge the King's life worthy of being cut short. The messenger himself died for his confession to the crime of murder.
Beliefs of inherent value where later shared with Judeo-Christian believers. These beliefs that all are of an equal inherent value were developed and expressed in a variety of ways. One example of the expression of this belief can be found in the United States Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html) They believed that this value could not be taken away and should be preserved.
These two schools of human value are connected to the believers notion of God. Contingent value is connected to a lack of belief in God. The ancient Greeks and other philosophers, while they often believed in some form of deity, did not hold great personal connection with these deities. Their gods where not personal creators who loved and cared for their creation. Some cultures held that they themselves were smaller gods working their way to divinity. Many of the more modern embracers of contingent value do not believe that there is any divine being or purpose for humans. They hold that humans sprang from eons of evolution and have only accidentally achieved their modern state. By this humans cannot have inherent value because one is only an accident, survival of the fittest. So by these standards life's value can change based on the conditional variables one chooses to place upon it.
In inherent value ones life is locked with a creator God. The Hebrews and their forefathers, as well as those of Judeo-Christian thought, hold to a personal God. Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of man in the image of God. Again, in Genesis 9:6 this connection is referred to when condemning murder. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Genesis 9:6, KJV)
9 comments:
This is random and rather too deep. God made (wo)man is his/her image therefore a human life is worth more than anyone can place a dollar value on (Human life is worth a camel?). To try and weigh out the physical matter of our being, and associate that with the current market value, is doing a disservice to God. By association God is worth $4.50.
Take into consideration how much work a person will do over their lifetime. The current world average (as of 2008) is 66.12 years. In the America's it ranges from, 65-80+, even smaller, the United States of America. In the United States of America we live, on average, 78.06 years, and we work (based on whether or not we start working at 18 and retire at 65) an average of 47 years. If you take the numerical value of all those hours worked, based on the current minimum wage and 40 hours/week for 50 weeks/year(vacations and sick leave) you come up with quite a higher value than $4.50. ($6.55/hour is the Federal rule) $615,700 is how much, on average an American will make in their lifetime. A lot more than $4.50.
Now consider how much of that 600 some odd dollars will be spent by the average American. We can only assume, considering our current climate that most Americans will die in debt, so we'll say $645,000. If you combine how much was spent and earned, $1,267,000. Much more than $4.50. This is all impractical, because because what was earned and spent was pretty much balanced out, but what was earned was in the service of someone else, and what was spent was by the service of someone else. Life continues in such a manner.
I guess you could than say that life is only worth $4.50 based on that, but than you turn you back on God's plan. Those figures do not take into consideration what kind of an emotional, and spiritual impact you could have of the people surrounding you. I would know. I've received nothing but the spoils of that return, and wish nothing but to someday pay it all back. This things are incalculable. It sounds generic, I know, but it's true. The monetary impact of our being could never be summed up by a neumerical figure. It is what we are.
How you choose to view your life and impact others by it is all anyone is worth. There is no money involved (see: Star Trek). I live my life by everyday, trying to repay others what they've shown me. In my mind I'm forever in debt to everyone. If I could just pay them all $4.50, it wouldn't be worth it for them. I can only hope to follow their example and return the favor to someone else.
Keep the faith Caitlin.
Caitlin,
This blog post was deep and well thought out. I liked your historical comparison between contingent and inherent value. I am thankful that I have inherent value as a child of God, no matter what values others may place upon me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Kiddo, thank you for your comment in pointing out the obvious ludicrousness of the opening statment. Hopefully you also see that the rest of the text is pointed to debunk this idea by placing a far greater value on the human life than the small numerical value that can be assessed to the minerals in a body.
You should read Mere Christianity, I think you would like it. Assuming I spelled it correctly. I wonder though, can you help me come to a better understanding of the story of Job? Is it a parable? or actual events?
I'm happy that i can still prompt intelligent deductions in people with simple questions. i tried this with Rylee a few days before she allegedly has a nervous break down, they two may or may not be related.
ohh and way to prove Godwins law by the way . . . i love when that happens.
however you misunderstood my position. i to hold the ideal that human life is inherently valuable, and that nothing any society of any kind deems to be true will change this. my purpose in presenting the question to you was to prime our conversation for further elevation. you made note that my objectiveness made me an ass. this is not true, i am an ass but not for reasons related to my objectivist views. i accept Death Caitlin, i comes for every man no matter how hard your try. whether it happen today or tomorrow it will eventually happen and has been for thousands of years. I am still amazed that the human race has really not accepted this fact. thus yielding my beliefs that sorrow at the loss of human life is strictly personal. personal value is the ONLY thing that can place a higher value on human life.
recently a friend of mine lost her year old new born to Spinal Muscular Atrophy. do i feel for her loss? yes because she is my friend. do i personally feel for the child? no. i cant, i never had anything to do with it or its short life on earth. did that make its life any less valuable? no. the infants life however was far more valuable to my friend, the mother, than it would ever be to me.
So does this declaration of apathy to the death of an infant make me an ass? or a bad person? no, not in the slightest. just as my apathy to the countless deaths of convicted felons does not make me a bad person. or my apathy to the millions of concentration camp victims who's lives were just as valuable as any criminal who was put to death in recorded history. nor were their lives worth more or less than the thousands of newborns God slaughtered in Egypt or the family of Korah son of Izhar when God opened the earth to consume them. or when God summoned a great wind to collapse the home where Jobs children resided killing them all. or the lives of the innocent women or children of nations God ordered the Israelites to destroy.
i could go on for days about the innocent lives God himself has take and ordered others to take. i will not pretend to explain, condemn or approve of Gods actions on these matters but surely each and every one of those lives was just as valuable as the next. which brings me to my only rebuttal to your copy pasta blog.
the messenger who brought news of Sauls death who was killed was not killed on the principle that all human life is valuable. he was killed because of Davids personal anguish and disgust for that soldiers betrayal. if this story was an example of the value that human life holds why would David have that mans life taken? surely the fact that this all happened in the middle of a battle where hundreds died has some bearing to the situation? because by your logic every life lost in that battle was just as valuable as the life of Saul Gods anointed. but if this was true why would your point be demonstrated by Davids denunciation of the soldiers actions unto death make any sense? by all means i would argue this story the other way. you mentioned the Greeks found the possession of various virtues to be the determining factor in the value of life. and this situation demonstrates this point, in the fact that killing "Gods anointed" was any worse than killing anyone else. which would mean that Sauls life was more valuable than any other person on that battle field. making your point moot. thanks for playing.
(if you commenters thought a simple deceleration of personal ethics in regards to the treatment of human beings was "Deep" then you should probably brace your selves because im about to make an attempt to take this to a new level)
lets move on from what we just talked about. for the sake of directing future possible discussion in this matter in the right direction lets just assume that all life has inherent value. and that by Caitlins assertion that all human life is equally valuable no matter what.
so if all life has inherent value and is inherently equal what is the definitions of life? what do we determine life to be that makes it valuable?
and if we define life to be the standard human condition what exceptions to this could we possibly allow?
and if human life is defined as the standard human condition in which we know, the condition that all who read this are in, how can God promise eternal life when we all know that everyone dies? that would make God a liar if it were true. but if its not true then it means that we cannot define human life by what we all know it to be.
peace.
Very long comment Luke! Interesting assumption, that the messanger was killed because of David's mental anguish. II Samuel 1:12 tells how David and his men were morning for "Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword." (KJV) So his anguish was not for Saul alone. Also, consider with the comment "the Lord's anointed" that David was also the Lord's anointed. (See I Saumel 16:13) Also, considerd that Saul had lost the spirit of God and was now controlled by a deamon. (See I Samuel 16:14)
However, all these notes aside the messanger's death was demanded by Hebrew law. (Remember Genesis 9:5 from the blog) Most well known, Exodus 20:13, states: "Thought shalt not Kill." (KJV) Num 35:16-21 defines murder and shows that to kill any one who was unarmed or not in combat was murder. The same chapter later states the punishment to be inflicted upon a murderer: "Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." (KJV) By his own confession, before David and his mean, the messanger was a murderer and brought upon himself the punishment.
Also note, that the Hebrews did not believe in life as the "standard human condition" because they believe that each moment was to be guarded, even the last few moments. Even is someone was going to die with in a few minutes, his life was still considered inherently valuable.
The issue of the eternal life that God promises is a completely different issue. The Bible clearly states: "For the wages of sin is death," (Romans 6:23a, KJV) It's also states: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) and "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—" (Romans 5:12) and again "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;" (Isaiah 53:6) So death is unavoidable.
The beauty is that God has promised freedom from death. "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Corinthians 15:50-58, KJV) So, while the mass majority of the world will suffer death at some point in life, God promised that some day that would be reversed.
"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." (John 14:1-4, KJV)
Caitlin, less bible quoting, more actual discussion.
i want conceptual thinking and honest answers, not 4 paragraphs of Bible quotation. if i was asking the bible to have a conversation with me i would, but i wasn't i was asking you.
Bob, I suggest you check out my profile. If you don't like what you get, you'll have to go somewhere else. You ask me, that's what you get. This is what I think. I am unapologetic.
your profile statement . . . that's new . . .
but intellectually it looks like a white flag of defeat and despair. you cant hide behind the Bible for everything. its a valuable resource but if you don't come to conclusions on your own terms by your own cognitive power and set your own psycho epistemological standards in stone. then your opinion useless and is no longer a falitical straw man but a literal one. you become a "because God said so" flunkie.
Post a Comment