The lack of a spell-checker in the 16th and 17th century is distressingly evident. Why, I read these old guys’ original works and their spelling is terrible, just terrible…
One human being is not worth more than any other human being. Bill Gates is not worth more than the guy who sleeps under a freeway overpass because he couldn’t afford any other place. Neither of them is more human than the other.
That anyone would say a human life is worth $X.00 disgusts me.
What should we do to save someone’s life? Whatever it takes.
I dunno. My dogs are definitely worth more than an awful lot of people I know, no matter how you measure it. I got them at the pound for a $50.00 donation each.
Human life is like a canvass. It’s what you paint on it that counts.
Some people actually have a negative value IMHO (which I guess is why you have to pay a hit man to get rid of them.)
I live in a very small town. There was a terrible car wreck the other night. My 1st thought was quick math: “There’s no way 6 cars can smash in this town without me knowing one of them.”
The advantages of living in a small town outweigh the occasional catastrophes. I can leave the keys in my car, not lock my house, trust strangers on the street. Yes, I am assisting you with your dead car in the supermarket parkinglot because I want this to keep going around; I want your daughter to jump me when I’m dead downtown.
The value of somebody in a small town is higher than somebody in a city; the replacement cost is inestimable.
First, I must correct my self.
ELECTRONS–not atoms–travel IN and OUT of time, not THROUGH time, as I had stated. I had used the word ‘wormholes’. I am no longer sure this is the correct term, and I will discontinue using it.
I also stated that they travelled “faster than the speed of light” which was my way of condensing the theory but, it is innacurate, and also wrong. I apologize.
These electrons travel IN and OUT of time without the interference of space.
Because these electrons do not have to travel THROUGH anything, it allows them to APPEAR that they are travelling faster than the speed of light. To our naked eyes, it seems they simply disappear and reappear in another location–instantaneously. (they disappear then reappear, in another location quicker than the time it would take them to travel through time and space to that location)
This has fostered a theory that everything can, theoretically, share one electron.
This theory is called Quantum Tunnelling. I assure you that I am searching all throughout my house (for that damn book) and all over the internet so I can give you an appropriate source. (if anyone can offer their help, it would be greatly appreciated)
Now, ‘human’ and ‘nonhuman,’ are CONSTRUCTS. While the molecular compositions are different, (to a smaller degree than you might think) we CHOSE to label them ‘human’ and ‘nonhuman’, instead of ‘composition 1’ and ‘composition 2’. I’m sorry for being unclear.
That’s why I believe that there is no such thing as ‘human’ and ‘nonhuman’. We simply labelled “composition 1” as ‘human’ and the rest, as a result, are ‘nonhuman’. I believe we are just one composition of many in this world, sharing the same space, holding no more importance than the next. Thus, we may call ourselves ‘human’, but calling everything else ‘nonhuman’ is a sweeping catergorization.
I realize that I am the one using these terms, ‘human’ and ‘nonhuman’, but most people view the world this way. The mere existence of this thread proves this point:
“What is the value of a human life?” This question forces comparison between human life and ‘everything else’ in this world; everything ‘nonhuman’.
In my opinion, no composition is better or worse than the other–they are just different. That is what I meant about my neighbour’s BMW and ANY given human being.
Including my mother and myself.
Why is this narrowminded?
I meant narrowminded not in the sense that people reufse other theories, but in the sense that most people do not even realize another point of view exists.
Sorry. I should have used ignorant.
Why is it arrogant? (to value a human more than a BMW)
Like I said: there is no reason to believe our molecular stucture is any more elegant or important than any other object in this world. They simply co-exist.
Furthermore, I am not assigning values to either human beings or BMW’s. I stated there physical importance (prominence) as being equal.
Don’t deny it. You think your more amazing than a coffee cup.
I disagree.
To say that every human is worth any cost to save is forgetting the effects of measures to save that life. Every dollar that you spend to save someone is a dollar that is not used to save another. When they spent all those thousands of dollars on saving that one baby down the well, they didn’t spend it on saving starving Ethiopians. There are hard choices to make. Most humans have to choose not to think about what they COULD do to save lives. If you lived you’re life realizing that every cent of gas that you put in your Lexus could save a child, you couldn’t go on for long. We make choices.
Also, lives are not of equal value in the real world. There are people whose entire job is making sure that they die instead of someone else. They’re called bodyguards. They exchange the chance that they may die for someone for cash. They go in to their jobs with the knowledge that their life is worth less than the person that they are to protect.
As a physics graduate, I am INTIMATELY familiar with quantum tunnelling – and it bears little resemblance to what you just described. More improtantly, it does NOT mean that everything shares an electron – and it certainly does not mean that the whole world consists of a single atom, as you earlier claimed.
This is an amazing stretch of logic. Sure, humans and non-humans are both constructs – but they are different TYPES of constructs. That makes it perfectly reasonable to distinguish between humans and non=humans.
So you believe that your mother has no more worth than your neighbor’s car. Have you shared that viewpoint with her lately?
Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on the proposition that all objects have some composition – and that therefore, they are thus equal in value. Why should that automatically follow?
No offense, but based on your misunderstanding of quantum tunnelling, I think you should be careful about using the word “ignorant.”
Again though, why describe this as arrogant? Even if your objection were correct, it would merely demonstrate that other people are mistaken. “Mistaken” does not equal “arrogant.”
You also keep insisting that molecular structure is the only possible indication of something’s worth. Why should this be the case?
Not true. Your exact words were, “A human life is as important as my neighbours BMW. To put such high VALUE on humanity is arrogant, narrowminded, and downright pretentious.” (Emphasis mine)
Since you were talking about molecular structure – yes, I do believe that a human being’s structure is more amazing than that of a coffee cup. I challenge you to find even a SINGLE biologist who would disagree.
Besides, you’re the one who keeps reducing a person’s worth to his physical structure. In contrast, everyone have talked about people’s inherent (non-physical) worth, or their contributions to society, or some variant thereof. Why should we adopt your solitary viewpoint? Why is it necessary to ignore everything else, such that we value based solely on whether they have a “composition” or not?
To talk about the value of a human life in monetary terms indeed offends.
That’s not to say, though, that the value of safety -or risk of death- is infinite. Given finite resources, it’s necessary (one way or another) to figure out how much one wants to set aside to enhance expected longevity.
This amount cannot be unlimited: even if we were willing to devote the entire output of the US economy to eliminating all of the 94,500 accidental deaths occurring each year, that would allow us to spend only $55 million per death prevented. (And there would be nothing left over for food, housing, Furbees or anything else). (Source: Viscusi, 1992)
One way of getting a handle on the value of safety is estimate how much US citizens currently pay to reduce the risk of death by a certain amount. A little math gives us an estimate of what some tactlessly call, “the value of a life”; current estimates are perhaps in the $1.5 to $10 million range (again, as of 1992). (More details on request.)
An older approach estimated the value of the person’s wages of their lost life-years. This tends to give lower values and is not favored so much anymore, probably because it feels offensive to equate value in the labor market with human worth. Still, it may provide a useful lower bound on the estimate.
Another approach is to look at court awards for accidental death. In this case the value of a life definitely varies by individual. I understand that being outdoorsy but dying in an urban jurisdiction (with more generous juries) enhances your post mortum value. Apparently if your hobby is reading, that doesn’t help. (Source: This American Life, heard on the radio some time ago)
Finally:
Most think that there’s a great difference between an actual life and a statistical life. Philosophers on occasion wonder whether that distinction is faulty, however intuitive it seems. They like to construct hypothetical examples involving trains, rail switches (which can be thrown so as to hit 1 person 10 feet away or 10 sleeping people 20 feet away) and fat innocent bystanders (who can be pushed into a train to prevent a greater calamity) to explore these issues.
I think stiff is delivering us some radical skepticism. I agree that it is difficult to establish airtight first principles for any ethical system. And choosing among definitions or conceptual frameworks is somewhat arbitrary, at least prior to putting those constructs into use.
But why stop there? Heck, it’s difficult to establish any sort of first principles. Stiff, how do you know the computer in front of you exists? Perhaps it’s a mere illusion or hallucination. (In fact Stiff, I’ll let you in on a secret: * none* of us posters exist, except as projection of your thoughts. Uh oh, I let the cat out of the bag now. 
) (Ref: Descartes)
Wow, you have some interesting fantasies, Doc.
To get back to the OP, “value” is such a relativistic term that there’s really no good answer. Very broadly, I think we tend to impose a higher value on human life in societies with a higher standard of living. The better off we are, the more surplus resources we have to devote to each life. Which is why, in the US, we have a health care “crisis” and don’t just drag our sick and elderly out into the cold for the gratification of the wolves. So while it’s an intensely personal decision how much you value a human life, if you leave the decision up to society in general, the answer is probably, “We’ll do anything to protect that life, up until just slightly after it starts affecting my wallet and/or personal convenience.”