Human Worth

Something interesting was brought up in my Political Science class the other day. We tried to define what "human worth" is, because it comes up in the constitution as having laws apply to "any person of worth", and we came basically back to nothing.
What would the bar be for determining what "worth" is? Some say that if you breathe and have life, then you have worth. But what gives one human more worth over another?
If you're a strong and healthy person, and believe in Darwinism (survival of the fittest basically), then that gives you more worth over someone who is handicapped. But what about the the astrophysicist Steven Hawking? He's been in a wheel chair his whole life, he can barely talk, but he has come up with countless important theories and findings about the universe and how it works. So who has more worth now? And then what about the woman with 9 kids sitting at home on welfare? What worth does she have? If you were in OJ's position, you would have gone to jail. Why does he have more worth than you? Why would the president as a person have more worth than one of his citizens? Aren't they still people when it comes down to it?
I was just curious what some other people's opinions were.

My opinion:
All human life is of equal worth and should have equal rights. However I think the taking of someone else's life shows no concern for their rights of worth, therefore murder in my book is a waiver of all human rights and worth. This leads to another opinion of mine. So called "hate crimes". The very idea of "hate crimes" infuriates me. It's basically saying that if you're black, asain, gay, handicapped or pretty much anything other than what I am, a healthy straight white male, you're life is worth more. Ridiculous. Ok I'll stop there for tonight :)

To be deemed a person of worth,you must first believe it of yourself. This will not automatically make you a person of worth,but without it you can never truly be there.

worth = what you know and how much you know of it

A Human is like art.

It is worth what the highest bidder will pay for it.
:cool:

Originally posted by fritz_269
It is worth what the highest bidder will pay for it.
:cool:


Care to justify that?

or are you being sarcastic, sometimes it's hard to tell with you determinist types.

"men are not potatoes" - Robert A. Heinlein Starship Troopers.

You can't put value on a human life - it's priceless.

Originally posted by Setanta
"men are not potatoes" - Robert A. Heinlein Starship Troopers.


Intersting quote to make, however have you read Stranger in a Strange land, or time enough for love? could be said he makes quite differnt assesments of the human value. (but of course it is quite true that men are not Potatoes :D )

and would care to justify your statement that you can not put a value on human life?
It is after all a very common practice in both Government and bussines.

I dont think government and insurance companies (and lawyers) are putting a value to human life. They are putting value to the activities and income potential of the person. Even punative damages for pain and suffering such as OJ caused are not based on the value of the person, but as a financial punishment available to the victim but outside the legal avenues available to law enforcement.

Originally posted by Moppie
Care to justify that?
or are you being sarcastic, sometimes it's hard to tell with you determinist types. :p

Simple. It's the definition of "worth".
worth = market value

Anything and everything is "worth" exactly what it can be traded for.
Coffee, blenders, oats, sex, steel, dogs, airplanes, people, trees, backrubs, oxygen, phone numbers, red ballons, etc. etc. etc.

If something cannot be traded, then the concept of "worth" is impossible to define for it.
:cool:

Originally posted by Moppie


Intersting quote to make, however have you read Stranger in a Strange land, or time enough for love? could be said he makes quite differnt assesments of the human value. (but of course it is quite true that men are not Potatoes :D )

and would care to justify your statement that you can not put a value on human life?
It is after all a very common practice in both Government and bussines.

I'm a Heinlein junky - I've read every novel and most of his short stories published in magazines. I was reading him since I was 10 (space cadet being the first). The only thing I can conclude is that he was a dirty old man who could write a damn good story (Friday, Stranger, Starman Jones and Starship troopers would have to be my favourite).

Govt, business and the legal system put value on a human life - but I have yet to consider any of them as having any trace of humanity :p

For me - a human life is something to be treasured. It can't be measured because it is irreplacable. :)

Originally posted by Setanta
"men are not potatoes" - Robert A. Heinlein Starship Troopers.


This man obviously never met James Brendan Bolger.

Originally posted by taranaki
To be deemed a person of worth,you must first believe it of yourself. This will not automatically make you a person of worth,but without it you can never truly be there.


Originally posted by RedY2KCivic
because it comes up in the constitution as having laws apply to "any person of worth"


Lets say that I don't believe in myself and have no worth. Then wouldn't no laws be applied to me?

Originally posted by RedY2KCivic
Something interesting was brought up in my Political Science class the other day. We tried to define what "human worth" is, because it comes up in the constitution as having laws apply to "any person of worth", and we came basically back to nothing. This intrigued me, so I went to check. I can't find the phrase "person of worth" or "people of worth" anywhere in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or in published Federal law.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/declaration.html

Can you give a specific reference?
:confused:

Originally posted by Setanta


I'm a Heinlein junky - I've read every novel and most of his short stories published in magazines. I was reading him since I was 10 (space cadet being the first). The only thing I can conclude is that he was a dirty old man who could write a damn good story (Friday, Stranger, Starman Jones and Starship troopers would have to be my favourite).


A dirty old man alright!
However he does have some interesting ideas about he furture states of society, and a lot of his some to us what perverted sexual attidutes (in his books, I believe he was quite normal in real life) do have a good rational basis.

That and he read and understood a lot of Neitzche, or maybe thought along the same lines. Because of lot of it is in his books.



Any way, Fritz, you mentioned that something can only have Worth if it can be traded. Yet the NZ government places a value on all its citizens, (i think its either about NZ$7million or $71million, the 71 sounds a bit high). However it is not based on the trade value, but the amount of money that person will earn in thier lifetime, and then spend on things like Tax's. It then has costs to society, e.g. Free medical care etc deducted from it.
It could be argued that the person labour is being traded to earn money, but then how would you apply this to someone with no ablity to work, who still gets the same value?

Originally posted by Moppie
Yet the NZ government places a value on all its citizens, (i think its either about NZ$7million or $71million, the 71 sounds a bit high).

'sif anyone would pay 7 million for a kiwi. :finger:

Oh hang on... I just checked the value of your dollar again :flipa:

:devil:

Originally posted by Moppie
Any way, Fritz, you mentioned that something can only have Worth if it can be traded. Yet the NZ government places a value on all its citizens, (i think its either about NZ$7million or $71million, the 71 sounds a bit high). However it is not based on the trade value, but the amount of money that person will earn in thier lifetime, and then spend on things like Tax's. It then has costs to society, e.g. Free medical care etc deducted from it.
It could be argued that the person labour is being traded to earn money, but then how would you apply this to someone with no ablity to work, who still gets the same value?
If someone with no ability to work gets the same value, then that value must be based on some sort of national average.

They are simply trading on the average worth of a NZ human. An analogy: If I buy a dumptruck full of oranges, I'll probably pay by the pound - knowing full well that there may be some bad oranges in the lot. What it's worth to me is a function of the ratio of good oranges to the bad oranges. The cost to me of evaluating and haggling over the price of every single orange individually way exceeds the benefit. It's much more efficient for me to just buy by the pound at the average price. In effect, this means that I've agreed to value each orange exactly the same way, regardless if it is perfect or rotten.

For the NZ government to individually decide every person's long-term worth is a daunting and nigh impossible task (just ask any US court!). IMHO, they've simply determined that it's just more cost effective to place an average worth on everyone.

Even more simply (going back to my original point) - each person in NZ is worth at least $7million NZD precisely because that's what someone (the NZ government) is willing to pay!
:cool:

I think you missed my point slightly.

Im well aware its an average. Otherwise it would be highly unfare to those few members of society who hold assests and personal worth of more than $7mill :finger:

What was I trying to get at is the arbitury nature of this figure.
And the possiblity its not used to buy and sell people.
But then I did remember its role in social policy. The cost of medical care for the average person is idealy kept below that figure. If it goes over it, then its considered more economical to stop treating them.
Same with subsidies for drugs etc.
As well of course as working out the cost to the economy when ever a natural disaster kills a lot of people.


so basicly forget I said anything. I was trying to challange your statement that worth is what ever someone will pay.
I think its been to long since I used my brain for anything more than driving a truck or fixing a car, its getting a bit slow. :bloated: :bloated:

Interesting that some people see the worth of an indivdual as being tied to their ability to conform to society's perception of normal.....perhaps somebody would care to put a percentage value on how much you would discount a disabled person,or a short person or a murderer or a 7th day adventist?
There must surely be a base level of human value upon which we build our own worth, regardless of any other factors.The example of Stephen Hawking is an interesting one.There is a man who has started the race to greatness from a point well behind the rest of the field, and yet his 'worth' must surely be greater than,say, an able bodied layabout.

but still,it would be a mistake to assume there has to be some core value(not neccesarily expressed in dollar terms)that applies to us all.If you don't believe me,look at any newspaper...the people who are most like yourself get the better news coverage.If a bus crashes in for example, India and 50 people are killed,does it get the same coverage as a local child accidentally knocked down by a similar sized bus?of course not.

we are conditioned by the media to believe that somehow people who share our views and lifestyles are worth more than those who do not.

Originally posted by Moppie
so basicly forget I said anything. I was trying to challange your statement that worth is what ever someone will pay.
I think its been to long since I used my brain for anything more than driving a truck or fixing a car, its getting a bit slow. :bloated: :bloated: Damn I like being right! :D :D :D ;)

Originally posted by taranaki
we are conditioned by the media to believe that somehow people who share our views and lifestyles are worth more than those who do not.Although I agree that a person will tend to value similar people more than dissimilar people - I do not agree that the media has much if anything to do with it. If there were no media at all - we'd still have exactly the same response.

One tribe will always value their own tribe above some other tribe. Whether they want to or not, I'm sure that most people value their parents or siblings more than some random stranger. It's a very natural and healthy thing to do -- in fact, it's human nature. :cool:

IMO, if anything, the media often lends a touch of cultural relativism, which often attempts to counteract the natural tendancies. I think primarily by mass media that gives us more of a sense of a single worldwide tribe.

Originally posted by fritz_269
[B]
One tribe will always value their own tribe above some other tribe. Whether they want to or not, I'm sure that most people value their parents or siblings more than some random stranger. It's a very natural and healthy thing to do -- in fact, it's human nature. :cool:



Nice! and Ethnocentric statement about being ethnocentric. :finger:

LOL @ moppie. Good call :p

I hammer my students about that all the time in Society and Culture :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Moppie
Nice! and Ethnocentric statement about being ethnocentric. :finger: My main point was that I don't believe that it's the media that somehow forces the concept of ethnocentrism on the unwilling and unbiased masses.

I'm really not sure how voicing an opinion that ethnocentrism exists in human nature is itself ethnocentric!?!? Pls. Explain.
:cool: