Marooli Badondon

English Honors 10

Benich

October 5, 2015

Value of Life

Society has been forced to value individual lives since it formed. The value of life has

been the basis of many political and economic decisions that have shaped society to this day.

However, the rationale behind the assignment of worth to human life is not a black­and­white

discussion; no widespread criteria for valuing life is both moral and economically viable. Society

should not value all human lives as equals and should not assign them monetary values because

superficial wealth cannot replace life.

Society has placed monetary value of lost lives several times in the past; whether this is

an ethically sound system is still up for debate. Amanda Ripley’s “What is a Life Worth?” is an

article about the monetary compensation of the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist

attacks. The allocation of money became controversial as disparities in the amount of money

provided to families in different economic classes became apparent. The article states that

“‘That’s because the courts are not attempting to replace “souls”,’ says Phillip Bobbitt, a law

professor at the University of Texas who has written about the allocation of money during times

of tragedy. ‘We’re not trying to make you psychologically whole. Where we can calculate loss is

economic loss.’” Bobbitt clarifies that even in court cases, lives themselves are not valued at a

monetary amount. Grant money is based on economic loss and on how much money the recipient

needs to uphold their current standard of living. Courts are incapable of replacing lives that have

been lost and believe that the most beneficial and unbiased compensation is monetary. Therefore,

an argument for assigning life a monetary value is countered with the fact that legal

compensation is not intended to replace lives lost. Despite this fact, Natalie Volchover claims in

her article “What’s the Dollar Value of Life?” that “putting a price on human life may seem

callous, but for safety analysts, it's simply necessary… ‘You can't simply say that every life is

infinitely valuable,’ said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University.” Therefore

‘valuing a life’ at certain monetary amount is a necessary evil to keep our economy afloat in this

monetized world.

One way of assigning a value to life is by evaluating the effect that person has made and

potentially will make on others. One example of assigning life can be demonstrated by the

President of the United States. Because of his position, he or she is valued more that the average

man or woman. If the situation arose where the President’s life or an average person’s life was in

danger, most would immediately choose to save the President because his life is of more

consequence. This situation shows that although there may not be a unit of measurement to value

life like money, lives can be placed as of higher consequence or significance than others. The

President directly affects the lives many more people than the average person because of the

responsibility placed on him; therefore, his life is worth more. This system provides clear choices

in some cases, but other cases are less straightforward and can be subjective. For example, in the

case of comparing the values of a doctor and a fireman, both people who save lives and

positively impact society, it becomes much more unclear and can result in a biased conclusion

(or, more likely, be inconclusive). Roger Ebert, a film critic that suffered terminal cancer, has a

similar idea about purpose and value of lives. He states that “I believe that if, at the end of it all,

according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something

to make ourselves a little happier, that is the best we can do,” in the interview in “The Essential

Man”. Ebert shows how individuals value others (and their own) lives differently from the way

society does. He says that a life’s value depends on the way it has caused happiness in others’

lives, i.e. impacted other individuals, groups, and society. Again, in this system, the value of

human life is not based on economic status, but a personal and societal impact; and, everyone is

not valued as equal.

Valuing human lives at monetary amounts has become a paradigm that some argue could be

detrimental to the lower class. This discussion raises the question of whether it is ethically wrong

to value people differently based on their economic status. Society should not place more worth

on wealthier people, but also cannot realistically place the same value on every life in the world.

Therefore, a more accurate comparison of values of lives is based on the effect lives have on

other individuals and society. Although this system does not provide an exact calculation or even

a completely objective perspective, it is a more just system than that of monetary value.

However, the compensation of lost lives will continue to be made in money because of the fact

that lives are irreplaceable regardless of the means or methods, making money the only

convenient, practical, and impartial choice.