What is the value of a human being?

Nothing and everything, depending on who you ask. For the vast majority of the population, a single person has zero worth, because they are just not that important/don't have enough impact on their lives. For a select few, a single person would be very valuable, because they give those few people around them something other people don't. Their contribution is important. Therefore their absence will be missed.
I don't believe people have intrinsic value though. It's a nice and pretty idea, stemming from the fact that we ourselves want to seem valuable and worthwhile. But in reality, all we are are flesh and blood, destined to rot in the ground one day. Our contributions are transitory and our impact eventually nil.
But who has the right to judge this? In a way, it sounds like you are saying that we all have the same value--as nothing. I don't find anything wrong with that - an equal value of zero. That's fine.

I don't think that I have any more value than anyone else. But I don't believe I have less either. Who has the right to decide value of another at all?

My belief is that no one has that right.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Moxie. I think the doctor was very wrong .. in the head. Sadly, this is the quite natural result of the Social Darwinist/self interest viewpoint. Expect to see more and more of this as time goes on.

:( :hug:

I'd have to disagree with the bolded bit, but then we've already discussed this in a different thread.
 
But who has the right to judge this? In a way, it sounds like you are saying that we all have the same value--as nothing. I don't find anything wrong with that - an equal value of zero. That's fine.

I don't think that I have any more value than anyone else. But I don't believe I have less either. Who has the right to decide value of another at all?

No one, objectively. It's not possible to stand outside yourself and assess another person's worth. Your own relationship to them (or lack of relationship) will always bias the result. You'll see them in terms of how YOU are, and how they benefit your own life (or don't), rather than what they are inherently worth. The whole concept is pretty subjective.
 
The whole concept is pretty subjective.
Agreed. Thank you for responding.

I see nothing but problems when people afix value to some people and not to others. To me, this is how rascism and discrimination starts. By making it ok or somehow justifying the value of one person over another.
 
Agreed. Thank you for responding.

I see nothing but problems when people afix value to some people and not to others. To me, this is how rascism and discrimination starts. By making it ok or somehow justifying the value of one person over another.

Thanks for responding to my response :)

Well, I disagree that valuing some people over others (subjective as it is) is really good or bad. It can be good, if it fosters a sense of community and willingness to help others. For example, you helped your mother to find another doctor because you believe she is worth more than what the original doctor suggested. It can be bad in the reverse sense, because it risks degrading everyone you haven't judged as valuable to the "less valuable" category in your head. In the extreme this leads to racism and discrimination, like you mentioned. Really, it can go both ways.
What's ironic about racism is that it uses people's tendency to bond with each other against other people who don't fit the mold, creating more division than unity.
 
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree with the second part, because I think someone has an intrinsic value regardless of their acts and thoughts. Let me explain why (I'm pulling this from a blog I wrote a while back). My mother had Paranoid Schizophrenia, and her thoughts and actions were often because of her illness, and not because that's how she wanted to be. Her non-illness personality was extremely intelligent, humorous, and very caring.

My birth-mother's battle with breast cancer started off horrendously. Although she passed over a year ago from heart disease, she had remained cancer free for 12 years. My mother had lived in an adult foster home for about 10 years before I got the call at 19 telling me of her diagnosis of breast cancer. I met with her, and took her to the Medicaid recommended doctor. This was one of the most horrifying experiences of my life.

The doctor told me that he recommended that my mother have a complete mastectomy.

I asked him, "Why? If the lump is only in one breast, and it hasn't spread to her lymph nodes, why should she have to have a mastectomy?"

This is when some of the most cold words I've ever heard from anyone came out of his mouth.

"Let me put it to you frankly. Your mother has no value. She will probably live in that adult foster home for the rest of her life. She is unlikely to ever get a productive job in society, and she is past the age to bear children. She is lucky to get any care at all."

LUCKY TO GET ANY CARE? NO VALUE? My mother was one of the sweetest, kindest people you would have ever met. It was not her fault to get sick enough to live in a home, nor was it her fault that she developed breast cancer.

Because my mother had no material worth, she was 'lucky to get any care.'

My mother, whom I never saw cry, even with all the bad things she'd been through, cried at this. She told me that she didn't feel like she could live if she couldn't have her breasts. She told me that her breasts meant to her that she had been a woman, and a mother.

And they sure as hell mattered to her!

I took her to get a second opinion at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. The doctor, (I wish I remembered her last name), Dr. Susan, was wonderful to my mother, and always treated her with respect and dignity.

My mother ended up only needing a lumpectomy and radiation--not a complete mastectomy. I was there for my mother's surgery, and through her radiation treatments. I made sure she got her medicine through her post-cancer life. My mother's cancer never returned.

If I hadn't made sure she had gotten a second opinion, my mom's life would have been radically different. A doctor who didn't care about a woman's self-worth, and a doctor that put such a value on another human life, probably would not have cared about other things involved in her treatment.

I am so glad you decided to post this Moxie, it is a wonderful story! Your love for your mother is obvious, though you did not grow up with her. You are great!! Like others have said, that first doctor was wrong. He should not even be practicing!!!! An "ST" for sure! Healers should always have compassion. That is even more important than skill--though much of the world denies this. I am pleased with the outcome here even though your mom passed. You did well, good job!
 
... self interest viewpoint
I'd have to disagree with the bolded bit, but then we've already discussed this in a different thread.
Indeed we have, but I am speaking of the results of the mainstream interpretation again, not the interpretation within the psychological circle. I've thought a lot about your viewpoint and when confined inside the constraints you outlinned I think now that it can be an acceptable interpretation.

It won't stay confined there though. :( It will spawn more shirts that say 'He who dies with the most toys, wins.'
 
I'm not necessarily talking about monetary value, but from a philosophical point of view, how do you measure the value of a person? Is one person more valuable than another person? How much would we give to save someone? What value would you give yourself?

$1,895
 
"Let me put it to you frankly. Your mother has no value. She will probably live in that adult foster home for the rest of her life. She is unlikely to ever get a productive job in society, and she is past the age to bear children. She is lucky to get any care at all."

Did your mother contribute much (more) to society in her earlier life?

Did your mother pay any income tax in life? Was she married to, or was she the partner of anyone who paid income tax in life*? Furthermore, regardless of the income tax analysis, I am sure your mother has purchased things in life too, which would have each held a sales tax.

(*= "Although in some couples, only one of the partners executes taxable work, the other usually ends up home-keeping (and other things), which reduces the workload that the taxable work executing partner would otherwise have, which means that the taxable work executing partner can contribute more on doing well at his/her job and other things (such as (helping with the) raising (of) children); i.e: both partners, if they do their share, contribute, at least indirectly, to the work which was taxed, and further contributions to society (i.e: the raising of children)".)


Many would argue that those who have contributed to society (especially through tax, directly or indirectly) in the past have earned any care they may need in the present. Furthermore, in many societies, there is a general convention that those in need ought to be helped.


But anyway, here are some corporeal values to society which I would deem your mother to have had in that condition she was in: (given that she earned and/or was entitled to her care) she provided the demand for a job which someone was paid for (and who developed while performing that job in some way, I would imagine), which was (probably) taxed; she offered her tales of life to any ears willing to listen (I would imagine); and her existence made you and others happy, contributing to a "domino effect" of happiness (and "happy workers are hard workers", yes?).
 
Good points GarmGarf, thank you!

It's really too bad that anyone has to have a $$$$ value.

I am also of the opinion that someone has a worth, even if they never work a day in their life. Like people severely disabled from birth. It was not their fault that they were brought into life with severe disabilities or a major illness. I think part of this is the stigma of mental illness, which has been said elsewhere here, is also an illness. Unchosen. That's probably a digression.

But thank you. I really liked the thought of the domino effect of happiness. :)

I think part of it is that he was a Medicaid doctor. The poorer you are, the less care you're entitled to, even on Medicaid/care. On the other hand, those of us stuck in a place that are working without insurance--I wonder how this gets dealt with. What is our value?
 
Even worse:
price of a slave is calculated to be approximately $340, with a high of $1,895 for the average trafficked sex slave, and a low of $40 to $50 for debt bondage slaves in part of Asia and Africa

The most fun part is: we are all indirectly involved; even by doing nothing.

I've also heard people discussing openly how good it was for society to legalize selling your children. I'm not joking, there are people who passionately believe how this is good. It was good for the economy and for the children to be raised by economically more potent parents and so on... By the way, when a company is bought and sold, along with all its workers, well, aren't they all bought and sold (kind of) too? Brrrrr...

Oh, I forgot, selling your organs was apparently a good thing too! (and humane!)

I'm not necessarily talking about monetary value, but from a philosophical point of view, how do you measure the value of a person? Is one person more valuable than another person? How much would we give to save someone? What value would you give yourself?
Okay, finally on topic now.
how do you measure the value of a person? I don't.
Is one person more valuable than another person? No. But if I love them too much, I could become biased. Only in extreme cases though; I'm not biased in well organized environments and criticize even my loved ones equally harsh.
How much would we give to save someone? Depends. I don't believe it is necessary to look at the question this way - give/take. It doesn't have to be like this. We never really give anything, and we never really take anything, if you think about it.
What value would you give yourself? None.
 
Last edited:
I'm not necessarily talking about monetary value, but from a philosophical point of view, how do you measure the value of a person? Is one person more valuable than another person? How much would we give to save someone? What value would you give yourself?

Philosophically, we are "supposed to be equal" but it depends on where you are located realistically. You life is worth much less in a developing third world country than a westernized countries. At least in western countries you get a fair trial if someone was killed or murdered to an extent.

Spiritually, the body is worthless without the spirit.

Financially, it is probably worth about a million...might have gone down a little since the recession....
 
... self interest viewpointIndeed we have, but I am speaking of the results of the mainstream interpretation again, not the interpretation within the psychological circle. I've thought a lot about your viewpoint and when confined inside the constraints you outlinned I think now that it can be an acceptable interpretation.

It won't stay confined there though. :( It will spawn more shirts that say 'He who dies with the most toys, wins.'

If it helps I think the vast majority of the people who would act like that are jerks who were going to act like that anyway, and as dense as most people can be sometimes they're usually well-meaning souls, so I don't think they'd let some pop-psychology version of this theory make them act any less positively towards people than they already do.

Maybe I'm just an optimist but I think that over time ideas like this can encourage positive growth in people, by getting them to think about how they think and why they act the way they do. That kind of "meta"-thinking can jolt people out of the mindless routinised, conditioned thought patterns that seem to be at the heart of a lot of the problems that people cause for themselves and each other.
 
Unless you are 100 percent serious then I am ROFCMAO!!! The C is crying..
 
Back
Top