Discussion The value of life (poll) - and why I hate school buses.

[derpyderpins]

It's often a harsh subject, but there are times when we have to put a value on the life of a person. As a lawyer, what springs to mind first is in a wrongful death lawsuit. If someone wrongfully caused the death of your loved one, what amount should we make them pay you to compensate? It sucks, but we need a number. I suppose we could just kill the person as an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing, but that's really no relief to the person who lost someone.

Different places use different theories. Below, I've attempted to explain a few different ways to approach this.

Spoiler: Caveat

To be clear, I've mixed economic and philosophical theories here. Value can be seen in multiple ways. Monetary is the easiest to understand, but a lot of people will agree that if you help someone else, even if no money results from it, you have provided value. One could also say 'well, the amount you helped will benefit that person who will go on to be more productive thanks to the mood boost and we can measure that in terms of $ to add it.' It can get complicated. I've tried to just give very basic explanations, so don't get hung up on exacts.

Here are several concepts for valuing life:

• Life is Sacred/Infinite Value
  • Explanation: Every human life is so special that no amount of money can ever measure it, no matter who the person is.
  • Rationale: Religious or otherwise innate belief.
  • Implication: With no limit and no number, we get to "if it saves even one life" rationale.
• Worth Based on Love (Others' Appreciation)
  • Explanation: Your value is how much people around you—like family, friends, or even strangers—would give to keep you alive.
  • Rationale: This aims to value based on individual impact in a way that rewards individuality and human subjectivity.
  • Implication: In ways, it's a popularity contest. Famous rockstar with fans everywhere who adore them? Likely beats someone with one close friend.
• Society's Share (Societal Valuation Theory)
  • Explanation: This says your value comes from being part of society. There are different ways to calculate, including:
    • Equal Share: Everyone gets the same worth—like splitting all the world's money evenly among every person. (about $13k / person worldwide, somewhere from $30k-$80k if you look at individual first world countries).
    • Risk Trade-Off: Your value is what society spends to keep people safe, based on things like higher pay for risky jobs or costs of safety rules.
  • Rationale: Rejection of the idea that one person is worth more than another, without taking it to the extreme of "life is sacred."
  • Implication: it's pretty low, right? That sucks . . . but it's hard to argue.
• Economic and Social Contribution
  • Explanation: Your worth is based on what you give to the world—money you earn, good things you do, plus what you might do in the future (like a kid growing up) and what it'd cost to replace you (like training someone new).
  • Rationale: People who add a lot—like workers, parents, or innovators—seem more "valuable" because they help society keep going or growing.
  • Implication: There are winners and losers. I asked AI to use the $13,800 / person average to guess at a bell curve. This is the world:
    • Very Low Value (2.28%): $0 to $92
    • Low Value (13.59%): $92 to $527
    • Below-Average Value (34.13%): $527 to $3,000
    • Above-Average Value (34.13%): $3,000 to $17,200
    • High Value (13.59%): $17,200 to $97,000
    • Very High Value (2.28%): $97,000 and above
• Joy of Living (Hedonic Value)
  • Explanation: This measures your life's value by how happy or meaningful it is—both for you and the people you touch. A life full of joy counts for more than one full of pain.
  • Rationale: Personal utility is the best way. What is your experience? Takes the subjective out.
  • Implication: Winners and losers, just on a utility rather than monetary basis. Very hard to convert to $.
• Self-Valuation Theory
  • Explanation: Your value depends on how much you care for your own life.
  • Rationale: It feels fair—if you don't value your own life, why should anyone else?
  • Implication: similar to Hedonic, but allows for the subjective.
• No Value at All
  • Explanation: Life has no worth—people are like spare parts, easily swapped out with no real loss.
  • Rationale: If we focus only on the big picture, one person doesn't matter much; someone else can always step in.
  • Implication: Everyone's value is zero—no one's special, and losing a life doesn't change anything important.

The poll I've set up asks you which you agree with the most. I'm very interested to see the results and read comments.

Spoiler: School Bus

I assume it will be popular, but I want to crap on the "life is sacred" theory before I end this post.

"If it saves even one life" is dumb. It was said a lot during Covid. Don't adopt it as something you usually say, please.

So, I'm commuting this morning, needing to be into the office early for a deposition, and I get stopped behind a school bus. Now, I don't know if this is the rule everywhere, but in my state the schoolbus stops all traffic behind it and all trafic on the opposite side of the road. I assume this is because once upon a time a kid jumped out in front of a car not at a crosswalk and got darwin'd. And I'm sitting there thinking, how much does this decision cost? I can count 15 cars behind the bus, but there were probably more, 5 in front of me travelling opposite the bus, and who knows how many behind me. Let's call it 50 cars. We sat there for (at least) two full minutes while the little shits slowly walked across the road to slowly climb into the bus. (Yes, I'm bitching about two minutes.) And I think, how many schools are there, with how many buses, and how many stops do they make, on how many days, and how many lives do we save?

Lets say, lowballing, 100 schools, 5 busses per school, 5 stops per day (times two for morning/afternoon), 20 cars stopped on average for one full minute on 180 school days.

That's 18 million minutes of people's time used up. Actually, in fairness, the people behind the bus would still be stopped, so let's cut in half. 9 million minutes. 150,000 hours. At US federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, that's ~1 million dollars/year. "If we save even one life." Well, whatever theory you chose above best have $1,000,000 as the value if it only saves one life a year.

Sorry if this was insensitive, but that's my Ted talk. I'll tell you my life is not worth $1,000,000.

 

[NumbItAll]

I don't know but I enjoyed the school bus rant even though I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I personally don't like school zones because I feel like it's distracting for me to always make sure I'm not surpassing the 15 mph limit whereas if I just drove normally there would be no issues.

 

[Namelesa]

I would say I agree with most bits of "economic and social contribution." but also how what you provide that isn't do with money. I see the worth of a life is what that life can positively provide to others in this world.

 

[derpyderpins]

I would say I agree with most bits of "economic and social contribution." but also how what you provide that isn't do with money. I see the worth of a life is what that life can positively provide to others in this world.

I think that's very balanced. It merges monetary and general utility. You can add value by providing economically, but also by emotionally supporting others.

I like that it doesn't shy away from money. "The root of all evil today . . . but it's no surprise they're giving none away." Money is the most crisp and clear way to measure value we have because we are constantly trading it for things, putting values on them. But it definitely doesn't capture everything, and there's plenty of good to be done outside the world of money.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I subscribe to the theory that makes you (as in you you) feel best about yourself.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Have you seen 'Worth' 2021? A film concerning the 'Victim Compensation Fund' in the wake of 9/11. That focussed directly on the monetry value of a life. Your post reminded me of it.

Such an awful position for someone to find themselves in- deciding how much money the families should get in compensation. Very morally troubling.

I can't even quite remember how they dealt with it. You can imagine the arguments put forward though. Brutal to put it in these terms but- should some big shot CEO who brought home millions for his family be compensated for a higher figure than a cleaner on minimum wage? Very hard morally to debate.

I suppose during covid, when many of us couldn't work, we were given a grant that was means tested on our salary over the past few years. I imagine- in monetry value- that's what people hope for in compensation in wrongful death. So- their average salary for the average lifespan including respective pay rises.

I guess it depends on what you're actually refering to though. On an individual basis, I think life is whatever we choose to asign it. If we start to give it a fixed value on an individual basis, we head into areas where we aren't allowed to suicide because 'life is sacred' etc.

On a societal basis though- I think all lives need safe guarding with the highest denomination possible. That way, sociopathic CEO's may actually be detered from releasing products/ services that are unsafe. Terrible disasters like the Boeing Max crashes, the Grenfell fire, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster etc. cost companies and countries huge quantities of money (or rather, they should.) Compensation needs to be high- otherwise, there's less deterrent.

 

[OptingOutSmiling]

I'm leaning towards "no value" because in the end, nobody is special really. Nobody is better than anyone else, and we are randomly born into this world with no control over where or how life starts for us. Random things happen leading us to making choices on life's path somehow shaping the way, but we are very much just another person on the planet. Anything can happen to anyone anytime to end life, no matter who we are or what our value is to others or what value we place on life. Then again, there is the other side to this coin, being the infinity of life's value. Because if we realise that anything can really happen at any time, we should also realise that life is sacred, and that the part of whatever is left of it, that unknown amount of time, should be spent wisely, or by making the most out of each moment, since in the end moments are all that we have.

 

[derpyderpins]

I subscribe to the theory that makes you (as in you you) feel best about yourself.

Well, my feelings aside, my value is probably higher in "worth based on love" and "economic and social contribution" than "Hedonic" and "Self-valuation."

I suppose "worth based on love" makes me feel the best, so I can frame it around how much I admire others in my life instead of myself directly.

Have you seen 'Worth' 2021? A film concerning the 'Victim Compensation Fund' in the wake of 9/11. That focussed directly on the monetry value of a life. Your post reminded me of it.

Such an awful position for someone to find themselves in- deciding how much money the families should get in compensation. Very morally troubling.

I can't even quite remember how they dealt with it. You can imagine the arguments put forward though. Brutal to put it in these terms but- should some big shot CEO who brought home millions for his family be compensated for a higher figure than a cleaner on minimum wage? Very hard morally to debate.

I suppose during covid, when many of us couldn't work, we were given a grant that was means tested on our salary over the past few years. I imagine- in monetry value- that's what people hope for in compensation in wrongful death. So- their average salary for the average lifespan including respective pay rises.

I guess it depends on what you're actually refering to though. On an individual basis, I think life is whatever we choose to asign it. If we start to give it a fixed value on an individual basis, we head into areas where we aren't allowed to suicide because 'life is sacred' etc.

On a societal basis though- I think all lives need safe guarding with the highest denomination possible. That way, sociopathic CEO's may actually be detered from releasing products/ services that are unsafe. Terrible disasters like the Boeing Max crashes, the Grenfell fire, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster etc. cost companies and countries huge quantities of money (or rather, they should.) Compensation needs to be high- otherwise, there's less deterrent.

I have not seen it, but I'd like to, because it is an interesting though sad topic. I based a few of the theories here around legal theories: the "how much you value yourself," "how much you contribute (what you describe with pay plus raises)," and "how much others miss you" are all used in different states afaik. How much others miss you sounds nice until you realize that someone who's all alone is completely valueless by that metric.

I took it out of the field of law and the question of "which one should we as a society use" to make it more "which one feels right to you, personally?"

Your last point is interesting. I'd say on that line of thought there could be a split between the mens rea, or the lame lawyer term for "intent." Did you know you were doing something wreckless, or did you screw up? And that's a fine line, imo. Think about someone who made the mistake of driving intoxicated once versus a CEO who for years knew damn well his policy was costing lives. Both arguably have intent generally, but the wanton recklessness and disregard for human life could raise the bar for the CEO. In that case, I'd say the CEO needs a punishment that is measured based on what he has (with a floor), it needs to hurt him (punative damages).

 

[LaVieEnRose]

• • Implication: In ways, it's a popularity contest. Famous rockstar with fans everywhere who adore them? Likely beats someone with one close friend.

??

I guess you forgot about this.



It's okay. 2000 was a long time ago. And it's probably not worth recollecting a time before @Aergia @ThatStateOfMind or @Saturn_ existed.

 

[derpyderpins]

??

I guess you forgot about this.



It's okay. 2000 was a long time ago. And it's probably not worth recollecting a time before @Aergia @ThatStateOfMind or @Saturn_ existed.

Uh bro that's a regular in my karaoke rotation wtf you on about me forgetting Britney.

Lol jk (not really I do sing that at karaoke but my outrage was a joke). But this isn't a question of happiness. It's about measuring worth, and part of the exercise is that no definition is perfect.

Also no reason you have to be "worth" a lot, or that you should prioritize worth over happiness.

 

[Saturn_]

Nice boat bus?

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Uh bro that's a regular in my karaoke rotation wtf you on about me forgetting Britney.

Lol jk (not really I do sing that at karaoke but my outrage was a joke).

Sure.

(Plot twist: You sing that at noraebangs instead.)

It's about measuring worth, and part of the exercise is that no definition is perfect.

Well, that definition is particularly lacking and can be removed from consideration.

Since the worth is something is generally brought into focus in its focus, how is the grief that someone experiences upon losing their one close friend going to compare to the grief people feel at losing an artist they were a fan of but who didn't even know they existed?

 

[Pluto]

 

[derpyderpins]

Sure.

(Plot twist: You sing that at noraebangs instead.)

Never heard that term for them. My wife just calls them coin karaoke, but they're great. I hate that we don't really have them here. It can be a nice little 10 minute break to let things out without having to pay for and budget an hour of time.

Well, that definition is particularly lacking and can be removed from consideration.

Since the worth is something is generally brought into focus in its focus, how is the grief that someone experiences upon losing their one close friend going to compare to the grief people feel at losing an artist they were a fan of but who didn't even know they existed?

Sounds like you don't mind the concept, just my example of implementation.

It is hard to compare. That's another issue with definitions that ignore $. I'm sure it's possible that the grief over one person can be greater than a million little griefs. But odds are the artist has some people close to them as well, plus millions of fans, and we're talking about some sort of total cumulation. There's also probably variance among artists and how connected their fans feel to them.

It was just an example, though. Not a rule.