What is the ‘value’ of a human life?

What is the ‘value’ of a human life?

The concept I’ve been asked to consider is the worth of a human being, and if one individual has more intrinsic value than another. The easy answer for me is, of course, ‘yes’, and I am sure that many may disagree, and that is a natural and reasonable reaction. To truly answer the question, we have to contemplate any number of issues, and we need to resist the temptation to react in an emotional or superficial way. We need to fundamentally understand the meaning of the term ‘worth’ and the impact that our interpretations may have on ourselves, on those we judge, and the communities and the overall society that we are a part of.

Make no mistake about it, our determinations are rarely objective in nature, but more subjective and emotional, which tends to distort and call our own conclusions into question. But that is what philosophy and science are all about, searching for legitimacy and something that may pass for ‘truth’, but more often than not, it is nothing more than wishful thinking and personal opinion.

For those that believe that ‘all men are created equal’, the reality is that we are a diverse species, and while we hold up that diversity as an attribute of our similarities and a sharing of experience, it is actually a stark example of our differences, and inevitably the source for enmity and conflict between individuals. The diversity itself is exciting, alluring and fascinating, but true diversity is an intense variety of what makes us different, and interestingly, it is a source for learning and growth and development. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case from a historical perspective.

We tend to assign worth on the value of what an individual accomplishes, for us personally, as opposed to, or in comparison to, another human being. What they offer to us on a personal level as opposed to a social one. It is difficult to say that Charles Manson is in any way an equal to Albert Einstein, and yet their potentials, at some point, may have been remarkably similar. Difficult to prove in any empirical way, and yet that is what we have chosen to believe, at least in America, where it is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, where it states that ‘all men are created equal’. Unfortunately, that is rarely, if ever, the case, and our differences, good or bad, are self-evident with a modicum of investigation and perception.

I personally acknowledge some degree of this equality, at least in potential, in each and every person that has ever existed, no matter how successful or infamous. The same individual that excels in academia or sports can just as easily be a horrible person, whether they be a spouse, family or friend. So much for a superior personality.

So, we ‘judge’ people based on what passes for ‘objectivity’ within our own paradigm, and we try to objectively analyze and assess the person based on what they are capable of doing. Perhaps this is unfair to some extent, but how then do we make the distinctions between individuals and their abilities and their personalities? When I go to the doctor, would I not ‘choose’ the best one available? If I hire a carpenter, am I not looking for quality and experience and knowledge? The same with a teacher, a lawyer or anyone else for that matter. None are equal. Some are better than others, and some are less so. This holds true in the case of philosophy, ideology, and morality. It is inevitable that we have to make a personal decision as to that value, that worth.

Can someone be worth so little that their life means nothing in some cosmic sense. Well, I would posit that we are all insignificant in the larger sense, and only in the micro do we possess value, to our families, our friends, and to those that we offer whatever services are applicable. The answer to the question of intrinsic worth is somewhat more difficult. It gets infinitely more complicated as we start discussing the rights and privileges that someone ‘other’ than ourselves deserves or will be able to obtain within our societies.

The irrefutable conclusions that I have formed, based on my own lifetime of attempting to create and develop a philosophy that has some semblance of value and consistency and comprehensiveness, is that everyone, without exception, deserves to live a life of their own choosing. The implications to such a statement are even more daunting and complicated and, in many instances, contradictory, or at least seemingly so.

The problem is that if we all attempt self-determine our own futures, conflict will inevitably ensue, probably verbally in the initial stages, with physical violence only a hairsbreadth away. Again, our Declaration of Independence proclaims the ‘inalienable’ rights of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. If one cannot do so without infringing on the same inalienable rights of another individual, then they should obviously forfeit those same rights for themselves. Without that assurance, there can be no rights whatsoever, and as for equality, the concepts lose all legitimacy in any real and demonstrable sense.

No one need ‘value’ me in any particular way, nor I them. The fundamental and intrinsic value is in the respect and civility that each of us deserves, and the refusal of either to harm the other in any way, with the expectation that they will be free to self-determine their existence and their actions, with no interference from anyone, for any reason, ‘except’ in the case where those actions harm another in some specific way.

Our forefathers were genius in their simplicity and their considerations. They were ‘not’ a homogenous group and their positions were as varied, if not more so, than what we have today. But they had a focus and a resolve to bring about an environment where man might actually be free to pursue their own happiness, on their own terms, albeit as long as they accepted and believed that everyone had an ‘equal’ right to do the same.

One must understand that the point is often made that these ‘declarations’ are in no way legally binding, but from a philosophical and intellectual perspective, they are as profound and irrefutable as anything I have ever heard in my life. Anything that is legally binding, and yet in conflict with these concepts, may indeed derive from society, but they have no intrinsic value except in the management of conflicting social interests, which cares little for individual rights or obligations. Politics exist for collective and social goals, while philosophy is more individually concentric, even as they contemplate social issues as well. These intellectual and philosophical concepts stand well above and beyond anything that may be made legal, which is simply, good or bad, the tyranny of the majority, and their true value can only be a matter of personal reason and philosophical deliberations. Which, of course, is the source of value within humanity to begin with.

No one can ‘tell’ me the right or wrong of personal worth. Only the individual can make that determination, based on a lifetime of experience, education, investigation, and the intellectual abilities and philosophical conclusions that only come with time, contemplation and comprehension of the world around us. But age does not ensure wisdom, and youth does not mean ignorance. Some truths are obvious to a child that cannot be understood even after a lifetime of experience for others.

I think the bigger issue is what do we do with those individuals that have shown a disdain and condescension for the rights of other human beings, treating them in a way that is degrading, using violence, intimidation, torture, pain and suffering to gain whatever it is that they desire. I am comfortable with my own conclusions, and some people need to be dealt with in a way that ensures that they cannot harm others again, which at times can seem ruthless and possibly undeserved, but justice has to be tempered with compassion and specifically the safety and preservation of life and liberty for all others. Society has instituted some measures, but the disagreement between individuals is intense and far-reaching. Without taking the law into your own hands, I know of no other way to confront the issue.

The concept of determining our own self-worth is fascinating and mesmerizing to the point of obsession. How does one assign value or worth to another if they have not come to grips with the self-determination of their own worth? Can I pass judgment on some other individual if I feel that I have no personal worth? Is it not irrational to think such a thing? If I have come to the conclusion that I have no intrinsic value, what possible value could my opinions hold in relation to another? The level of objectivity necessary would seem to be next to incomprehensible.

This idea of self-worth is something that has been one of the singular goals of my own path to awareness and comprehension. The individual has to come to conclusions about themselves and the world around them, and these contemplations cannot be bought or borrowed, but must be determined and understood only by the individual themselves. The concepts of right and wrong, of good and evil, are not a matter of consensus but a matter of overwhelming evidence which can only be based on personal experience, education, intellect and reason. There is nothing else, really, and while we like to think of these things as objective, they are in essence a subjective perspective of reality, and a reflection of what we have decided are true, or at least as close to truth as we can find. The whole concept of ‘self’ is the key and the answer to all of the issues that plague mankind.

That puts philosophy in the center of the answer of how to get ‘there’ from ‘here’. Social input and perspective can be a component of that philosophy, but one cannot simply follow the dictates of others, since one never knows exactly what went into the determinations of ‘their’ positions. The end result can only be legitimately decided by an inner conversation with oneself as to the right and wrong, the good and evil, of each and every thought and action that we determine is appropriate and reasonable and will not harm ourselves, those we love, or even those we don’t. Once we come to that point, it is not a philosophical truth of another, but a deeply personal belief of ‘self’ that can not only be espoused, but reflected in our daily activities.

This ‘worth’ we consider today is not about human life, but about all life. It doesn’t really matter what ‘species’ is the focus of our investigations, it is the respect and value we place on all life that walks upon this planet, since we are all closely related and intricately invested in the well-being and existence of all other creatures. Without them, we may eventually cease to exist, and while that may not be true for every entity, it certainly pertains to the vast majority.

This brings us to a whole host of even more complicated questions, such as the killing of animals for food or sport, and the incarceration of those we deem criminal. Is it only Humanity that deserves natural ‘rights’ or does all life have some intrinsic fundamental privilege to live according to their own expectations and perception of life? Worth is simply a single contemplative concept that we need to address and confront. There are hundreds or thousands more. You will find them in the pursuit of philosophy and knowledge. The quest is not for the faint-of-heart.

The value of a human being is perplexing. The conflict is that we are all irrefutably unique beings, and yet we give the highest value to those things we find in life that possess unique characteristics, in art, personalities, music, even in nature. If so, then do we all not possess value? Do we not all have intrinsic ‘worth’. Like the diamond, the value and the worth are not apparent until it is worked and shaped. The sculpture is just a block of granite until the artist creates form and function. Many blocks of granite have never been allowed to show what already exists inside, or is it just inside the mind of the artist? Many say the artist is the one who sees what is actually inside.

I guess my inevitable conclusion would be that we can judge others only from a subjective perspective, so their worth is what we determine. There may be an objective component, but that is always arguable. Not that this same person cannot ultimately have great worth to someone else. We spend too much time making such determinations about others when we should look within and create and develop our own self-worth by means of our thoughts and our actions. We exhibit our worth through our thoughts and by our actions, directed by a personal philosophy that compels us to act according to those beliefs, based upon a reasonable and consistent morality, which in turn promotes valid and ethical imperatives within our actions. Character and integrity are not far behind, and all of these things create a personality built on a comprehensive belief system which exhibits that self ‘worth’ to the world. How people perceive us is somewhat beyond our ability to control. But we can control ourselves, and live a life of value and legitimacy. Thus, this ‘worth’ is ours to define. No one can take that away from us.

Others can make their own determinations, but in the end, it is just their opinion, and no better than our own, and in most cases, unreliable and of little consequence.

I leave you with a profound comment from our friend Linus, a character in the Peanuts comic strip:

“I love Mankind.
It's people that I can’t stand”

As far as ‘worth’ is concerned, we all deserve to be recognized as valuable individuals. But I have no obligation to like anyone else, and they need not like me. But respect and civility? That, my friends, is an imperative.


2376 words
entry for Kit's Philosophical Musings for May