What is the value of a human life?

Great Debates
1

How would you figure the value of a single human life to society? I don’t mean ONLY monetary value. Well, I mean that too, but also in the more abstract sense of value. Is it based on the cost to society of losing that single life, or on how far society is willing to prevent that loss?

I had thought about this before, just not in those terms, and now I’m up in the air. I suppose in my opinion it’s closer to the latter, but would ideally be closer to the former.

Now that I write this, I suppose it could be a candidate for GD, but I’m not sure. It looks to me like a General Question, in that I’m curious whether there is a widely acknowledged consensus.

Input?

But Manny, if you feel the need to move it, I won’t whine.

2

one body=$3.50

3

depends on who we’re talking about… IMHO, one Einstein is worth many Andrew Dice Clays…

Before we can assign a value to a human life, we need to know 1) Does God exist? If so, how does He/She/It value human life? 2) What is this person going to do with his/her life?

4

Value is largely subjective. But since you’re asking about the “value…to society”, I’d say it depends on how much that individual contributes to that society (or is perceived to contribute). And I suspect it’s largely logic-light. Consider who we pay more…sports figures or teachers/scientists/etc. Many sad deaths go unnoticed every day by the whole of society, but on occasion the media will elevate some “common person” to a national concern.

I suppose this is a by-product of a large society. In a small tribal society of only a few dozen individuals, or perhaps a small town, I imagine that each person can have significant value because it becomes much more personal when everyone in the society knows and supports each other.

5

I’ve always been willing to categorize a single human life in terms of an asset or liability. If an individual consumes more than he produces, then he is a liability and has a negative value equal to the imbalance of his consumption. Someone who produces more then he consumes is an asset equal to the surplus of his production.

Children, who don’t generally produce anything, are not necessarily liabilities because they full under the umbrella of their parent’s productivity. The parents, however, could easily become liabilities if their assets don’t cover their children’s consumption. People who are not able to produce intellectual property or tangible goods are, like children, not necessarily liabilities if they can produce “companionship,” but someone with assets would have to purchase the “companionship” by providing their consumptive needs.

Human life, in and of itself, in a vacuum, has no inherent value.

Okay, everybody can hate me for such a callous view, but that is how I see it.

6

In GQ, the answer depends on how you sell it. Reduced to base chemicals, a few bucks. By the organ on the black market, perhaps several thousand. Whole as Jim Carey to the devil, $20 MM per movie. Whole as Demi Moore to Robert Redford, an even million.

For the more subjective part, let’s move this thread over to Great Debates.

7

No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manner of thine friends or thine own were. Every man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. Therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for thee.

8

Interesting answers all (except the first one! ugh), but a bit more specific than I had hoped.

I’m not really interested in the value to society of specific people, or even a single value that can be applied across the board (obviously not possible).

What I’m looking for is a rough method for determining an individual’s value. I suggested two:

Value_assessment_1 = How far would society go to prevent person N’s death?
Value_assessment_2 = What would be the cost to society of person N’s death?

Obviously the two won’t always (or even necessarily often) coincide. But is either of them sufficient to answer the question? Anybody have any other suggested methods?

9

Things to consider…

I think thats based on many factors… the ones that come to mind are:
how powerful that individual is… if people think they would be sufficiently rewarded for saving an individual… they may be inclinded to do so…
how popular that individual is… if they are well liked it helps their chances… if they are dispised it hurts…
how well that individual relates to the masses… if they draw great sympathy or are seen as a symbol of pride, etc and society really gets behind them… they would be political advantages to saving that person…
what it would take to save that person… is it just calling 911, is it a doctor refusing to give up, do we need swift decisive military action, a pardon, what? … the feasibility of saving that life is considered…

As for the cost to society for losing a life… well thats pretty much unknowable as there is no way to account for what that individual might occomplish (for good or bad)… but society tends to continue on as individuals fall by the wayside… so far, whatever the cost for all the lives weve lost… it hasnt cost us society… yet…

10

I think if you take Pyrrhonist’s suggestion and mix it with Joe’s value_assessment #1 and add a little VileOrb you get something like this:

Vile’s value = [Society’s prediction on Vile’s surplus of production for the rest of his predicted life] + [the cost of angering anyone who is especially fond of Vile] - [the cost of protecting Vile]
Either of the two first components could be negative. The first if Vile is a drain on society. The second if Vile has powerful enemies. If the composite is negative, then the third component needs to be replaed by the cost of having Vile eliminated, the whole thing then becomes the value of having Vile eliminated.

11

The value of a human life… Some people said before me the value depends on the person’s value to society and ability to help the society, as well as the cost to save the individual. That is all true. But the value also is affected greatly by the person’s relationship to you. Person X’s mom might be worth millions to him. To me she’s worth nothing. I can’t give a value to a person who I’ve never met or heard of. A friend of mine is valuble to me, but not nearly as valuble as he would be to his parents, or siblings. Blood relations give people the most value, followed by friends, then famous people who you know are good, then aquainances, then strangers.

12

My god, Scylla, that was the most beautiful post I had ever seen in a long time.

13

threemae:

It’s not original. I think it’s from John Donne, or somesuch. It’s something that stuck in my head since about the 5th grade.

Thanks, though.

14

Yes, you’re right, it’s Donne. Well done though. I don’t recall the whole thing offhand… :smiley:

No man is an Iland,
intire of it selfe,
everyman is a peece of the Continent,
a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea,
Europe is the lesse,
as well as if a Promontorie were,
as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were;
any mans death diminishes me,
because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to
know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee…

15

I see a problem with this method. Since everything that is produced is consumed by someone, this means the average value of people is zero. I would suggest that instead of using the total production and consumption, we use marginal production and consumption. That is, we ask not how much someone makes, but how much it would cost to replace that labor. We should subtract not the cost of what they consume, but how much money the producers of those items would save if they didn’t produce the items. So if someone spends $20 on a CD, we should count that as, say $1 of liability, not $20, because the marginal cost of the CD is not $20.
The question of how much society would spend to save someone’s life seems like a very poor measure to me, since in depends on so many factors independent on how much the person is benefitting society.

16

Gaudere:

Thanks. You might want to run that through a spell-checker though :wink:

17

Ahhh… well, that’s the decline of public education these…

screw it.

Nevermind.

18

Well, I’m sorry but in my opinion all of you are way off. Your not starting from the beginning. A question like this requires intense introspection. Questions about assingning value and how we do it need though first.

I believe:

A human life is as important as my neighbours BMW. To put such high value on humanity is arrogant, narrowminded, and downright pretentious.

To value Einstein more than Andrew Dice Clay makes no sense.

Values attributed to any object in our world (including a human being) are comparitive constructs, and are limited by HUMAN capabilities in ‘simple’ reason and sense.

“Asset” and “Liability”, to me, mean nothing. They both mean the same and different things all at once, at any given and at all times, to different people.

There is no such thing as red, white, tall, or short. Going further, there is no such thing as human or nonhuman (molecularly speaking)

It is theoretically possible the world shares one atom (travelling through wormholes [yes, faster than the speed of light] splitting and fusing constantly and is everywhere at all times in everything)

Our senses just don’t comprehend it.

It doesn’t matter if god exists or not. “What is”, (or what exists) is still “what is”, whether god exists or not.

No, this isn’t a joke. I really believe it.

I realize my argument is quite short and not very detailed.
I encourage whoever is better versed in this sort of thing to add to my initial thoughts or to destroy them completely.

I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

19

Why is this arrogant?

Why is this pretentious?

Why is this narrow-minded? (Remember, taking a stand on something is NOT narrow-minded per se. It can only be narrow-minded if the advocates REFUSE to consider or even discourse about other points of view.)

I notice that you equate the value of human life with that of your neighbor’s car. Might one not argue that it is “arrogant, narrow-minded and downright pretentious” to put such a high value on a mere vehicle?

How so? Humans and (most) non-human objects are both composed of molecules; however, human beings have an entirely different molecular composition and organization. There most certainly IS a difference.

Can you cite any physics publications which advocate this point of view? I don’t know ANY physicists who believe such a thing.

More importantly, it’s irrelevant. Even if the world shared just a single atom, this wouldn’t mean that your neighbor’s car is as valuable as a human being’s life.

Yes, but the existence or non-existence of God can determine how we should live our lives. Unless of course, one believes that mere existence (being “what is”) is all that matters.

20

Let me ask you another question. Do you feel the same way about your own mother’s life?