-Mods Please Delete-

[LostElement]

This was just for a simple english project and I found out taht it wasn't required. However thanks for your answers. Mods, please delete this thread.

Edited April 24, 2015 by LostElement

[Kibble]

Homo sapiens is a special animal - we invented civilization! We're a triumph of natural selection that has made nature work for us. Human life has as much value as anything in the universe.

[r4pt0r]

The value of human life depends on the culture and individual. Human lives can be thrown away or deemed priceless by various religions, or bought for 2 grand in some southeast asian countries. Revered as priceless by the media when its a celebrity, ignored by the media when its just a child in the inner-cities.

Hundreds of thousands Have died because one man wanted to rule an empire. Millions upon millions died because one man wanted to take over the world. The history of humankind is paved with slave labor, bodies dragged off when their use has expired.

As to your poll, no, I don't think all human life is valuable. All human life has the potential to become valuable, and some lives start with more value than others, but at the end of the road, some people have no value.

And that all also depends on who is weighing the value? A plantation owner viewed human lives in dollars and cents. A teacher sees infinite value in front of them every morning.

Your question is too broad for me.

Edited April 24, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Kryten]

Government regulatory bodies have actual literal values for this-basically showing what cost of safety measures is worth one fatality-but they disagree quite a bit. In the US, where this info is easiest to get, the Consumer Product Safety Commission says $2 million, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says $5 million, and the EPA says $7 million.

[Fel]

Why should human life be considered valuable? We're just a sack of flesh, like any other animal on this planet; though, perhaps, we're the most arrogant.

I think it should be interesting though to try a test: if you had the choice between one of your loved ones, and a group of "valuable humans", who would you save?

Does it matter how "valuable" these humans are? If it was, say, your ruler, would you trade the life of said person for that of your loved one? If it was leaders in business? Leaders of technology and development? Would having more of your loved ones' lives at stake change the value of these "valuable" people?

If we find that value is indeed subjective; then can we also say that the only value we place on other people's lives is the value to prevent their deaths from impacting our own life? Do we value the person, or what the person does for us? Is this value an arrogance, borne from fear of being left alone?

[kerbiloid]

As you can choose one thing from two, any thing in Universe is more or less valuable - relatively to the compared one.

As you can compose many pairs of many things to be compared, you can build (more or less precisely) a rated sequence of their valuabilities: from the most unexpendable things down to useless trash (from your POV).

So, any thing in the Universe has its own position in such rating, and you can call it "a price" if you want.

So, any "price" is:

- Fuzzy (in terms of mathematics).

As you probably have no clear opinion which of two similar-looking stones is more preferable to you. And more of that you have no need to be sure.

Or, say, it has a logarithmic-scale precision: you have no idea, does this stone cost $1 or $10, but sure not $100. So, you consider it as a "few dollars stone".

- Subjective (POV-related).

As a treasure for one person may be a piece of dung for his best friend.

- Probabilistic.

As you rate the things according to their probable actuality in your life.

Sample 1.

You live near a road. Every day you buy some food. It costs: at "your" side - $20, across the road - $10.

You can buy it either near your home - with no risk, or crossing the road with a 1:10 probability to be knocked over.

Probably, you will choose the safe way.

And if the risk is 1:100? No, still dangerous.

Let the risk would be 1:1000000000. Probably you will risk.

And what about 1:100000000. Still risk.

And what about 1:10000000... Well, yet risking. And so on.

So, you get a rough delta of your life price.

Say, keeping $10 per day with 1:100000..1:1000000 per day probability of game over.

Now you can easily calculate a mathematical expectation of your total gain per, say, 50 years.

You can treat it as an estimated price of your life (better take a logarithm to reduce fuzziness).

Sample 2.

You own a house, say, of three rooms. Your salary is enough to eat, but not enough to buy another house if you loose this one.

You need to get money to save a life of some person known to you.

Do you sell your house and buy a smaller one - of two rooms, paying a difference to save him/her? Say, yes.

Do you sell it and buy a much smaller one - of one room? Well, maybe yes.

Do you sell it and rent a room in a townhouse? If this person's life is very important for you.

Do you sell all your property completely, staying a homeless beggar for the rest of your life? Wait, this is too much for you. Say, no.

How much money would you need to turn "no" back to "yes"?

Probably, the minimal cost of the appartment you are ready to live in to save this person.

That's the price of his/her life from your POV.

Maybe that's cynic, but the question is too.

[ZedNova]

In my opinion, A humans worth is based on an individual's accomplishments or immediate potential.

[Thomas988]

It's interesting, because even though I do believe life is valuable, I think saying otherwise is insulting. It's like I don't want to think that humans aren't special.

[Superfluous J]

So according to the EPA it's okay to let someone die in a fire if you can save a briefcase with $7 million dollars in it.

And they're better than the PSC because the PSC thinks it's okay for a briefcase with $2m in it.