I was having a discussion with noonereally the other day about the value of human life. Can a life be measured? Can each life be assigned a finite value, or is life invaluable? Are some lives more valuable than others, based on their potential to contribute to the good of society?
At the least, one way or another, the worth of some collection of lives can be measured against that of another collection. If each life is sacred, then the net worth is reflected only by the number of lives involved (i.e., as Mr. Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”). In the more cynical case, if each person’s worth is determined by his potential for future societal contribution (or some other criteria), a group’s net worth is simply the sum of the group members’ values.
The most obvious fallacy to avoid here is the claim that each life is infinitely valuable (cry, baby Jesus, cry!). After all, if every life has infinite worth, then five hundred lives are no more valuable than one.
Another interesting aspect of the discussion, from the standpoint of total geeks such as myself, is the possibility of a life being of infinite worth in the “future societal contribution” case. The easiest way to understand this idea is to imagine a person with the potential to cure death (or at least old age) during his lifetime, live forever, and continue serving society forever (assuming an ever-expanding universe).
Now, if the future is a tree of possibilities with each branch represented by a small but nonzero probability, it is mathematically possible to compute a person’s total worth by multiplying the value of his contributions along each branch times the probability of that branch actually occurring. But if a person could live forever, this function becomes an infinite sum that could converge or not, depending on the tree’s branches (we all remember our sequences and series from calculus, right?).
In other words, just because someone has the potential to live forever doesn’t mean his life is infinitely valuable, but it might be. In that case, the needs of this uber-individual truly would outweigh the needs of any number of non-uber-individuals.
I have also considered the idea of finite-lifespan lives having infinite worth through deeds of infinite future impact, but haven’t fully thought it through. The obvious example here is that of Jesus of Nazareth. (Even if he wasn’t divine in nature, just look at how much his life has fucked everything up, even two thousand years after his death.)
As for souls… what a crock. To those of you that believe in an eternal soul, tell me: what exactly will happen when you die? Will your noble spirit ascend to a better place, where you will be reunited with family and friends? At which point from your life exactly will this occur? Will you be as you were at the moment of your death? Or as you were during the “peak” of your mortal existence? Does an old man with Alzheimer’s regain his faculties when he sheds the mortal coil? Does a dead infant suddenly develop the capacity for self-awareness and rational thought?
What makes us who we are? Even if there is a portion of us that transcends this filthy, filthy existence, why would anyone think it has anything to do with our individuality? It’s already been shown that our behaviors–our actions, deeds and thoughts–are all a function of our physical being.
Poke somebody in the brain and you get a response. People who suffer head trauma are changed forever. Who we are isn’t stable as we live our lives, and is mutable based on our physical aspect. We sure as hell aren’t going to retain our identities after that aspect is gone.
And that fact really saddens me. I like who I am. Why does it have to end?
Let me take you to the hurting ground
Where all good men are trampled down
Just to settle a bet that could not be won
Between a prideful father and his son
--Bad Religion, “Sorrow”