I would say that the value of any human life should be held very highly because each unique person is like a universe. Perhaps, in an overpopulated world the value of each individual is not considered as being that significant. But that might be a reflection of the values of consumer material industrial society.

However, there is also the other matter of human beings seeing themselves as the top of the hierarchy of living beings, to dominate and exploit the natural world. This valuing is questionable.

In any case, I wanted to ask people here what they thought of such a general question. What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

I believe that consciousness itself is subject to a special type of reciprocity relationship, such that its own nature is ultimately determined by the nature of the rights it ascribes to others. So for me, it is only by ascribing an ultimate value to the sacrosanct quality of the life of the other that I realize the value of my own life. i.e. view others as ends in themselves, never as means.

The best I can come up with is something like the value of a life is the value you assign to it. But this feels like it leaves out plenty. — Manuel

I think thats exactly what value human life has. Everyone picks and chooses what life is valuable, most people don’t care about vast swaths of life, from bacteria to insects. Others care about animals of all kinds, many just the cute ones. Some only really care about human lives and of course others only care about certain human lives. Some only care about their own lives but everyone picks and chooses, everyone assigns their own value to it.
Personally I think life's value should be judged according to that lifes merits and if certain criteria arent met (like if someone just goes around killing and spreading misery) then I can’t say I put any value on that at all.

I like to believe in a semi-absolute way the value is more or less the same throughout. Now the personal attachment to certain lives aka people, beings, or "souls" even is where opinions come up.

Certain religions should be credited for an entirely psychological benefit. That benefit being, when you are told you have been created willfully and intentionally, it is a blessing personally bestowed upon you by someone or something much greater than you, and it can and may be taken at any given moment, therefore you should be thankful for each day when you wake up and before you lie down, it can be notably effective in softening the blow and both short and long term psychological effects of losing someone very close to you, even horribly. Then again the same could be said with a bit of spin on any form of belief or "comparison" I suppose. Pragmatic, nihilistic, and even combinations of both. "Imagine. We're on a giant blue marble with seven other planets, all uninhabited, hurling through space at millions of miles an hour, across the galaxy alongside millions untold other galaxies we've yet to know anything about. What a miracle. 'Not a bad life'", etc.

Edit: What I was going to continue on about before I re-read your post was the interpretation of "what is the value of human life to you (in general)?" As in, say, on this planet or in the universe or more broadly, etc. I was almost going to pose the caveat: compared to what? You can value nothing more than the life of a person, yet not view the potential (and inevitable) loss as anything more significant than a yawn or a sneeze. That kind of mindset typically involves some sort of religion or metaphysical belief (reincarnation, etc.). Somewhat tangential to the aforementioned idea of "human life in general" yet relevant to your definition would be say, imagine the most remorseless criminal guilty of the most heinous crimes, all of which were against you or your loved ones personally. You could hate him, wish for him to be executed, etc., but if we were to focus on that "human life in general", it would still have value. Basically there is the "spark of life" vs. "what one chose to do with it" ie. "the individual". I know you did say "a" human life which can seem to boil down to "what do you think about other people (or perhaps people in general, to include yourself)". Not sure if this is your intention.

It was meant in the broadest sense possible so as to include any interpretation. Human life compared to what? To anything else in nature, including other people.

Yes, I see where you are coming from when speaking about the most heinous of criminals. That's a fair point, if difficult to assimilate. But any answer is good really.

It's a good question. In theory, we are all the same species, all evolved, and living on the same planet; so why should we not have global government? There's a concept called 'political legitimacy' that plays out in all sorts of political systems. It undermines the idea of global governance, because - people would inevitably find global government too distant from their interests in much the same way US states resist federal government, and the UK resisted EU governance. I think this is a related question.

Much as I might like to pretend otherwise, I cannot get as worked up about the death toll in Yemen as I am by the death toll from Covid in my own country. I value the existence of humankind - and humankind is made up of human individuals. Politically, it's expedient to uphold human rights, not least, the right to life. But I value the individuals I know, and those over the horizon are somewhat abstract. My life, that of my loved one's, friends, neighbours, colleagues are more important - to me, than those of strangers in strange lands. And I expect, they feel much the same way. All of which suggests that they are best placed to govern themselves, and we to take care of ourselves.

To begin with, I like to look at it from an empathetic standpoint. I don't like getting punched in the face and I like to have a decent amount of fun in my life; must be the same for you, eh? No wonder morality which is all about the value of human life has an ubiquitous maxim going by the name "the golden rule" - don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you i.e. I value others as much as I value myself with the proviso that if it so happens that I don't value my own life, it doesn't mean that I don't value others' lives too. So many tragedies have occurred by not heeding to this simple moral principle and the condition that I made explicit.

The value that a person places on life in general is largely abstract and usually emotionless. The value that a person places on a loved one is frequently highly emotional but can, at the same time, be a value in the abstract, ie a conscious mind expressed value as Manuel points out..

"Some only care about their own lives."

"To care" is a verb related to the word Mattering. It is actually an action - an activity carried out by the carer. It is sharply limited. One can only care so much. If you care about one person you can not care ten times as much by ten.

Also caring is a mental mechanism that exists physiologically in human minds and was evolved because caring is highly pro survival. Heavy caring can indirectly produce real actions liking clearing the snow off the walk or locking all the doors or advocating against racism.

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

Depends on the human. Some non-human lives are more valuable than some human lives.

To quote a line from Phil Ochs, "I'm sure it wouldn't interest anyone outside a small circle of friends."

The actual importance we ascribe to a life increases to the degree they are part of our life (as opposed to a theoretical, abstraction). There will soon be 8 billion people; an estimated 150,000 of us die every day--all sorts of causes. To their family and friends, each of these lives and deaths is significant. Outside of that circle, not so much.

Still, we try to put some force behind abstract, theoretical valuations of persons. We do that more to protect economic and political stability more than protecting individual relationships among small circles of friends. We do that because we know stability and security are protective of individuals--particularly ourselves and our small circle of friends.

Do I highly value people I know? Of course. Do I highly value the people who I know only from a headline, "33 people killed in a Bagdad market bomb blast." Honestly, no, but not because I de-value them. There just isn't the necessary connection of personal knowledge.

I don't know about other people, but I don't have the capacity to feel badly about 150,000 individuals dying.

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

Hillel the Elder expresses it best: "That which is hateful to you do not do to another."

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

It is a bit complicated. The best way to express the value of human life can be approximated by:

Limit of (cos(x-2)/x^sin(x-e)/(x^i ))(as x approaches zero)

It is precise to four significant digits. I am sorry I could not be more exactingly precise than that.

000000000000000

Seriously speaking:

"What is the value of human life?" is the wrong question. It is comparable to "what is the value of God", or "what is the value of time".

If you want to take the question with a quasi-positivistic attitude or stance, then sure it is the wrong question, or a poorly phrased one. But if you don't approach it in this manner, then you can say things about it.

You ask, what is the value of God? I say, I don't believe in God. But I can say that plenty of people do, and to many, such a concept makes life bearable given otherwise miserable conditions. So in this respect, it would rank quite highly on lists of things with value. But it also has a negative side, what with all the fanaticism and intolerance, so in a final cost-benefit view framework, it has little value to me.

What is the value of time? Interesting question. From the most general perspective possible, time is that which allows anything to have value, for if there is no time, you can't value anything. Likewise, most people would like to live a relatively long time, instead of a short one. If we talk about physics, time is problematic in that it's not clear how it fits in with modern theories, as pointed out by Lee Smolin. So its "value" in this domain is not clear.

And so on.

The best I can come up with is something like the value of a life is the value you assign to it. — Manuel

All life is sacred. Therefore every life has an equal value. So the cow that was part of my dinner had the same value as my life. As does the jackrabbit, and all the other creatures moving around. Human life is more relatable to me than animal life, but not more valuable. Every life has equal value, the penalty attached to the ending of a life is very different depending on the species that dies. No one objects to someone killing a mosquito (except the mosquito), more object to the death of a mouse, rat, or gopher (but still not that many) and as the perceived value of the animal increases in the view of humans the number of objectors also increases, until we get to people, then we have special names for the killing of people: Murder. Because it is so bad it gets it's own word, and section in the criminal code. But really, ending a life is ending a life. People=bunnies=whales=cats=bugs. the one dying is rarely supporting of the killing.

But really, ending a life is ending a life. People=bunnies=whales=cats=bugs — Book273

Then it would be unethical to save a C-patient, because you would be killing a large number of C-viruses.

The question is a practical one :
What chores for other people is worth saving a life?
Closely related, what chores for productive people are worth increasing standard for non-productive people?

If one considers a virus as a life, that would be correct. However, as I understand it, a virus is not a living entity, therefore your example is inaccurate. I put it to you differently: C-patient is infested with a large number of D-tapeworms, which are alive. A) By killing the tapeworms c-patient will live comfortably and with increased health. B) By palliating C-patient the tapeworms will live, as will C-patient, however the patient will be in pain for the duration of life. C) By not treating C-Patient at all the tapeworms will procreate until C-patient dies painfully and any tapeworms within the patient will also die.

Which of these scenarios is most preferable? The vast majority would elect that option A) Kill the tapeworms so that the patient may live comfortably and healthy. Certainly so if one's primary concern is the patient. Option B) should be chosen if the goal is maximizing life as there is no death involved. Option C) is only really of value to someone who can't be bothered to be involved. As for which is the most ethical...again, what are you striving to achieve? That answer will guide your treatment plan.

How do you define "chores" and define "non-productive people". I am better able to answer if I understand the measurements you are using. Thanks

If one considers a virus as a life, that would be correct. However, as I understand it, a virus is not a living entity, therefore your example is inaccurate. — Book273

OK, let's better take an example with rats. If we don't kill them, they will eventually attack our children. Who would say that the life of a rat is worth as much as that of his child?

The whole question is wrong. The question is not about value, but: What should we do?

What should we do? — SolarWind

That question is based on values. I value my kid more than I value rats, therefore the rats die. I value my kid more than many other people in my life, therefore, if it comes down to it, my kid lives, they die. If my kid suddenly becomes evil, then I no longer value him as much, then he dies while others, more deserving, live. All of this is based on perceived values. If the decision is mine to make, my values take precedence over other's. IF not mine to make, do not consult me on the issue. However, values will still guide the decision model.

OK, let's better take an example with rats. If we don't kill them, they will eventually attack our children. — SolarWind

Also, this is a bold assumption. Rats will eat people, but not as an opener, more of a last resort.

That question is based on values. I value my kid more than I value rats, therefore the rats die. — Book273

What you are saying about the comparison is of course correct. But a "value" suggests something that can be expressed in dollars.

Sure, I can say that my child's life is worth more than the life of a rat, but I can't give an absolute value, but maybe a relative one.

I did not mean Value as in monetary value. I meant value from the personal perspective of importance to the observer. What is the value of a beautiful sunrise or kissing my wife in the evening? I hold those things to be highly valuable, but others wouldn't. I need money to continue to live in the fashion I am used to, but outside of requiring it for maintenance reasons, money is quite valueless to me, in and of itself.

A value is a quantity. When I order things, it is an order. On the question "enemy or family" I will probably prefer family most of the time. :)

And the thing about the unvalue of money is hypocritical. What else do people work for?

What people work for is money. Why people work where they do is often not money related, more satisfaction related than monetary gain. Volunteers make no money and yet find that work exceedingly rewarding. Clearly in a non-monetary way.

I put it to you: if tomorrow you woke with a substantial amount in the bank, enough to live comfortably for the rest of your life (whatever amount that would be), would you cease working entirely, stay where you are, or change your employment for something more satisfying? I would change to something more satisfying and would continue as I have been. Work, increase my education, and so forth.

It is logical that I do not only choose work based on wages, because it is an exchange of labor for money. If I'm supposed to wipe out acid tanks for ten times the money, it might not be a good choice. But I have to earn a minimum amount to cover my costs.

What would your pizza delivery company say if you explained to them that money is not important and that you want the pizza for free. The matter is a lie.

What I would do if I had an "infinite" amount of money, I cannot answer that, it is too far removed from my situation, but certainly not working all day.

For a number of years I ran my business on the "pay what it is worth to you plus material costs" model. It worked very well, the exceedingly few people that paid nothing were likely never planning on paying anything anyway. I am considering going into private practice now and will once more resume the "pay what you think it's worth" model. I find it is more appropriate than time for money models. If I am terrible at my job then I will make less money and need to get better at it.

As for the pizza example, if I ordered the pizza and then said I want the pizza for free, that makes me a dick. However, If I called and said I will pay you what I think it's worth, I would have a pizza delivered to me by a number of pizzerias.

Also I did not say that money is unimportant. We need it to acquire necessities. I said that outside of that requirement, it holds little value in and of itself. If my needs were taken care of I could easily give my entire wage to people who have more use for it than I. There would be no reason to hold on to it.

If you want to take the question with a quasi-positivistic attitude or stance, then sure it is the wrong question, or a poorly phrased one. But if you don't approach it in this manner, then you can say things about it. — Manuel

Okay, so you want to assign a different meaning to "value" which is not actually value, but something different.

In order to have an intelligent discussion about it, then YOU must tell US what your new, improved meaning of the word "value" is, by which we must measure life.

You simply said, "if you don't approach it in this manner". So what is the manner I should approach it in?

Clearly, you asked an open-ended question, where the parameters themselves are not clear. Value can be anything of a metric? Or not even that much constraint?

I actually see the point in your question: it is a good general discussion-generator. Everyone talks about something that comes to their mind, and if they talk about completely incongruent things to each other's topics, then it's okay too. Yes, there is that kind of philosophy as well as the kind that concerns itself with proofs, truths and convergence. The stream of consciousness, with no goalposts, no aim, no common ground.

Carry on. Please ignore my post.

"Okay, so you want to assign a different meaning to "value" which is not actually value, but something different."

I did not know that "value" was the kind of word which had only one meaning. I thought "value" could refer to several meanings including prices, ethics or a mathematical object.

It never occurred to me that "my" definition of value had to improve on traditional uses of the word when it is used in conversations about manifest reality. Clearly there is no common ground here, as people aren't replying to each other in a thoughtful manner.

"Yes, there is that kind of philosophy as well as the kind that concerns itself with proofs, truths and convergence."

There sure is. And if you stick to it and use it as the guide by which intelligent questions can be asked, then you leave out of it the vast majority of life. By all means feel free to start a thread about a new and improved meaning of the word "value", with a "goalpost" in sight. I would be much interested in seeing how that would work out.

I would gladly ignore posts that were empty of words.

Okay, but I still don't see what meaning you give to "value". You said it is not the meaning I gave. So there must be a meaning you gave it.

You are right: you don't have to manufacture a meaning for "value". There are many, many different meanings. So then please tell me which of the many meanings you want us to use.

Without any guidance, my meaning was correct, I did not detour from the dictionary meaning. You refuse to tell us the dictionary or philosophical meaning of "value" you want us to use.

Therefore the discussion is wildly divergent. Anyone can use any meaning to value, and I ought not to be denied the meaning of "value" whatever of its dictionary meanings I chose.

Except... except, you said:

If you want to take the question with a quasi-positivistic attitude or stance, then sure it is the wrong question, or a poorly phrased one. But if you don't approach it in this manner, then you can say things about it. — Manuel

So the manner of using my choice of value is not valid in this discussion.

Therefore I have to ask you to please tell me: WHAT MANNER OF CHOICE {of the many possible meanings of the word "value"} IS VALID IN THIS DISCUSSION?

It annoys me a bit that I had to ask the same question, and that I had to EXPLAIN IN FINE DETAIL why I needed to ask the same question. And please, for the sake of humanity, do answer the question now.