In the light of the string of recent tragedies (Japan, Libya, that kid who died after winning a high-school basketball game), I have once again been thinking about how much life is worth.
It is clear to me that every life is inherently valuable, but is it possible or preferable to consider one life more valuable than another? And if so, what standards should we use to differentiate one life as more valuable with another?
I think the inherent reaction of the mostly unprejudiced individual is to say that all lives are equal. After all, it is a founding principle of this country that "all men are created equal". This is what I agree with. And yet, in practice, I have found that the opinion of many that I have encountered is implicitly discriminatory in the value of life. In the story of that kid who died after winning a basketball game that I mentioned earlier, I have found many people saddened by the event, people who, as I might add, are emotionally independent to far worse xor equal tragedies. While this personally doesn't affect me — I, for one, find dying after winning a basketball game a pretty decent way to die, even at such a young age — I do find myself more concerned about the multiple tragedies in Japan than any other disasters, both recent and ongoing. I feel worse for a Japanese person dying than any African child, though I should value them equally.
I find this inconsistency troubling. I would like to continue to believe that all lives are equal and therein be able to dismiss anyone trying to make me feel bad about the death of a famous person or a particular group of people as no more worthy of my grief than starving children in Africa or executed political prisoners or babies dying of SIDS. It is in this way that I can avoid feeling negative emotion for something that does not affect me. But this real concern I have for the Japanese people along with my desire to be unaffected would require a degree of cognitive dissonance that I am not comfortable having.
I don't know what to do about this but I hope a solution will come to me.
First of all, thank you for using xor.
ReplyDeleteSecond:
Start with the premise that every human life is intrinsically worth 1 unit. At that measure, every human life is equal. However, extend this theory by adding units for the amount of lives each human will impact, in various ways.
A mother whose two children's lives are dependent on her (perhaps in Africa), adds 2 units to her worth.
A murderer who kills one person subtracts 1 unit from his worth.
Using such a system allows you to justify that some lives are worth more than others. We are all intrinsically created equal but in the course of our lives we become more valuable. For instance, a scientist working on a team of five who cures a disease that will save ten thousand people adds quite a bit of worth: ~2000 units. Such a person is worth a lot not only because of their contributions but also because of their future potential.
A philanthropist is worth more because of the number of lives he can impact positively. This is why it was a bigger deal when Mother Teresa died than anyone else that day.
Taking all these (often incalculable) things into account, it's easy to be more concerned about the death of many Japanese (who, as part of a first world country, will contribute more to the betterment of the world's lives than otherwise) than an equal number of 3rd worlders. It's rationalization, but it makes sense.
-Nathan