How many people have ever joined a message board and actually gotten involved in the discussions??? I've been doing that a lot lately... one online community I've been a member of for a while (www.theactivitypit.com) has a number of features, one of which is a forum. When I first joined, I wasn't very involved, but recently I've been sticking my nose in there and dropping random tidbits of two cents everywhere. A lot of times it's for fun, but other times, it's really thought provoking and causes me to really think about my responses.
One such thread on the forums was called "The Value of Life." Intrigued, I decided to check it out. This is what it said:
This has been on my mind for a few days.
Everyone seems to be more affected when children die in a tragedy instead of adults. So, when does a person's life stop meaning as much? Is there some sort of curve? I would think children would die happy and carefree, which would be the way I would go if I could choose.
When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, why is it more important then when a factory worker dies doing his job? Wouldn't the amount of attention paid to the death be in equal proportion to the inherent risks associated with the job?
When people are begging for their life, they always feel the need to add " I have a wife and children" - why does this make them less disposable? The most basic and neccesary human function is pro-creation, so somone who already passed on thier genes to the next generation should be LESS valueable then someone who hasn't had children (but still may).
So, why are some people more or less valued than others, and who places this value on human life?
I read through the few responses that were already there, and upon agreeing with a few, I wrote my own response. Another member of the site told me to flesh the idea out (I had tried to condense it so it wasn't a horrendously long read) and blog it, so - after giving it some thought - I decided to do just that. Here is my response to the question, with a little more thought... lol.
Why are some people more or less valued than others, and who places this value on human life?
This question really makes me think of high school - one memory in particular. Anyone who went to Judson with me will probably remember the little pamphlets we got at the beginning of the year to take home to our parents. The life insurance pamphlets (Anyone wanna try and figure out why a high school was offering life insurance?? lol... go there and you'll find out). I know a lot of people didn't read the pamphlets before shoving them in their parents' faces, but I did, and I remember being part of a "revolt" on my bus, as well as a "protest" in the early morning (that really didn't go anywhere, and consisted of a small number of us telling everyone that Judson didn't value their life), because of something I noticed about the pay out on the life insurance policy.
The pamphlet listed the type of pay out a person would get for certain injuries and, while I can't remember what loss of hand, loss of foot, etc. were, I do remember the pay out for two particular injuries: Loss of eye, and loss of life.
The pay out for the loss of an eye was $5K.
The pay out for the loss of a life was... anyone? anyone? Bueller? $5K.
It kind of bothered me - but mostly made me laugh - that the school had decided that our lives were about as valuable as one of our eyeballs.
The reason I bring this up is basically to say, the value of life is completely dependant on the person doing the valuing. Each and every person values each and every life differently, and for different reasons. Maybe you and I each value a soldier's life more than that of a serial killer, but I guarantee you it's not for the same reason. Things - not just an individuals life - have value because we give them value.
Do me a favor and think of one thing that means the world to you. Maybe it's a necklace, or a favorite blanket, or stuffed animal, or lucky pair of socks, or favorite pair of jeans... something. Just figure out what you have that is your "favorite" and means something to you. Now, imagine giving that thing to your best friend. Wrapping it nicely, sticking a bow on it, and handing it to them, just cuz. They open it, and pull out your lucky pair of socks. You may be excited, oh these mean the world to me - but what are they thinking??
"Great, dude, you got me a pair of stinky socks... thanks!"
Now, did I just compare human life to a stinky pair of socks?? Yes and no. Basically, everything has value because we decide to give it value, and human life is no different.
Everyone seems to be more affected when children die in a tragedy instead of adults. So, when does a person's life stop meaning as much? Is there some sort of curve? I would think children would die happy and carefree, which would be the way I would go if I could choose.
Children are a tricky topic to handle, so I'm going to do my best to get my thoughts across.
For starters it's a tragedy when anyone dies, period. BUT - I think it's more tragic when children die, because when it comes down to it, children are innocent. They're young and are still learning the whole right/wrong distinction. It's hard to look into the face of a child and think that they may not have that long to live. Look at us - we've made it this far, why shouldn't they? Children touch us in a number of ways - they view the world differently than we do - and as adults, on some level, we feel it's our job to protect them until they get to the point where they can defend themselves.
The statement above says something to the effect of, they think children would die carefree, etc. etc., but I do strongly disagree with this. Yes, children are innocent and carefree, but they're also vulnerable.
I worked as a nanny for a few years and over those years, I experienced a lot of things. At one point, over the course of my job, the little boy I nanny'd for decided it would be cool to run at the couch (which was underneath a window) and do a handstand. He had merely been running and sitting on the couch, and I turned my back the second he decided he wanted to do his handstand. I heard a loud crashing sound, and turned around to see his bare foot in a window that now had a nice hole in it. I immediately got his foot out of the window before he could cut himself anymore than he already had, and set to getting a towel for his foot and calling his parents. Now, he wasn't cut too bad, didn't need stitches or anything... and he was fine - until it started bleeding, at which point he started crying. His foot probably hurt, he was bleeding, and he knew he had done something he wasn't supposed to. I held him for a while until his parents came and while I knew he wasn't hurt too badly, it hurt me to know he was so scared.
The point I'm trying to make is: children are easily scared, and if their lives are put in danger, I don't imagine they're very carefree about it. Children are still discovering things like pain and fear when they're young, and I think any situation that would result in a child's death couldn't be very carefree. Each of us were children, and we know the fears we had when we were younger, so it distresses us to think of a child being scared up until the point of their death. I think this adds to why it seems like children's deaths are more tragic than those of adults.
When a child dies of natural causes, it's treated slightly more tragic than when an adult dies of natural causes, because that child never had the chance to live a long life and discover who they were, experience the emotions that come with growing up, all of that. That child is essentially robbed of their future, and that's upsetting. More so than that, when a child's life is taken, it's more often than not taken by an adult. You don't hear too many stories about children killing other children, though they are out there. When a child's life is taken, it again delivers that distress of knowing the child was probably scared - terrified, really - probably in pain, and along with that comes the knowledge that there are people out there evil enough to take the life of something so innocent and defenseless. Look into the face of a child... no matter how angry that child makes you, I guarantee you can't imagine taking his/her life. No matter what you imagine that child doing, you'll never be able to justify taking his/her life, and it's distressing to know there are people out there that can. It's not just about the child at that point, it's also about the fact that there are evil, sick people out there.
Finally, a child's death probably touches us, because none of us want to go through the pain of losing a child. We know how horrible that would be for us to go through, and we know that somewhere, someone is actually going through that. I should hope no one is sick enough to wish that pain on anyone, because I know I wouldn't dare wish it on my worst enemies. We sympathize with what the parent/guardian is going through, at which point not only has a child lost their life, but others are also suffering. Each of us probably has a small part that wishes we could make the pain and suffering in the world stop, and every time we know there's a mother out there greiving for her lost child, we feel a small sense of failure and helplessness. No one likes to feel that way.
When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, why is it more important then when a factory worker dies doing his job?
I had an answer for this, but I don't think anything I could say could sum it up better than one of the people that commented on the thread. Doc Goolsby said:
When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, they are given more emphasis because they have chosen a life that puts them in harm's way. Most factory workers don't. There are safety measures put in place to lower risk of death. In the life of a soldier or a cop, that can only go so far. The machines and environment of a factory worker are not maliciously intending to exterminate the worker. In the environment of the cop and the soldier, that is not the case.
And honestly, I couldn't have said it better myself. I think we value them more because, when it comes down to it (in most cases), these people lost their lives while working to make our lives safer. We respect that, and I'm sure on some very small level, some of us feel responsible for their life. It takes an amazing person to say they'd rather protect the lives of others than keep themselves safe, and it's sad to see such a person lose their life.
Finally - to address
When people are begging for their life, they always feel the need to add " I have a wife and children" - why does this make them less disposable?
I don't know. I don't know why a man who has a family should have a more valuable life than one that doesn't. All I can think is, perhaps he isn't thinking of himself at that point, perhaps he's worried about his family. As head of the family, it is the man's job to provide for the wife and child, and protect the wife and child. If he's killed, the wife and child are then forced to take care of themselves and, while it's doable, nobody wants to leave their family behind to pick up the pieces. And, I'm sure on some level, it's a way of bartering, trying to make the killer understand that their actions are not only affecting the person they're threatening to kill, but also the person(s) close to them.
Again, these are all just my opinions, because value truley depends on the person doing the valuing.
What about you??? Why do YOU think certain lives seem to be of more value than others?
