This thread arises out of my previous thread; 'Melinda's mission'.

Bill Gates wrote; “We created the Gates Foundation in 2000 because we believe in the principle that every human life has equal worth”. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/bill-melinda-gates-letter.aspx

Is this a good principle?

Is the value of a desperately poor child’s life, amongst hundred of millions of similarly poor children in Bangladesh worth the same as that of someone like Barack Obama or Bill Gates?

Can we in Australia realistically be expected to consider the lives of a desperately poor Eritrean family to be of the same value as those of a family living in our street?

Ludwig

The Value of human lives is an absolute concept, before the material world put a dollar sign next to it. It therefore makes the Bill Gates Foundation the more commendable, particularly for someone of his wealth. Some kids maybe living in poverty in the third world while in Australia they have reasonable living standards, but in terms of rights and innate potential, there is no difference. The values of democracy and of equal rights have let to signficant improvement in social welfare, there are now more protection of the rights of the poor, the disadvantaged and the minority. And this is obviously something we should all be proud of. So extending this concept a little from our national circumstances to a global one, there is no reason why there cannot be fundamental equality.

You further ask:
"Can we in Australia realistically be expected to consider the lives of a desperately poor Eritrean family to be of the same value as those of a family living in our street?"

Yes we certainly should consider them to be of the same value, if value is attributable to being a human being. And no you don't necessarily have to go and help them or donate any sum of money, if that makes answering your question a bit easier for some.

“that every human life has equal worth”

It depends on what someone means by “Worth”.

If “worth” is simply the right to exist, then yes all life is of equal worth.

If “worth” is some abstract concept of inherent value, then No.

Some lives exist with genetic defects which may not necessarily affect that particular “human life” but may affect any progeny, such as Huntington’s chorea.

Therefore carriers of the Huntington’s chorea genetic defect have a less valuable inherent value to someone free of the condition.

If worth is measured as some value of contribution to humanity, then No.

The value of social contribution any individual makes to others or “humanity in general” is totally dependent upon both their ability and inclination.

People are born and grow to different heights both physically, intellectually and altruistically. Social merit will reflect how individuals choose to deploy their individual physical, intellectual and philanthropic capabilities / resources.

Ludwig, only at the base level can you ascribe equal worth to different lives. In any comparative test, some will be found to be more valued than others but one aspect of equality is each should be free to achieve for themselves and not be labeled at birth by the class or caste they are born into.

Dear Ludwig,

"All Lives have equal value," is the basic
tenet of the Gates Foundation.

In my opinion it's an excellent tenet for
the world's largest charitable foundation,
($60 billion +).

When Gates spoke at the World Health Assembly
in Geneva, he asked the question as to why
vaccines for curable diseases that were
available to children in Western Countries
were not made available to children in the
poor developing countries? Were their lives
of lesser value?

His foundation then set about in providing these
vaccines to give poor children a better start in life.

Supposedly, we are all created equal. But of course
as Gates has proven, the reality is so very different
for some.

For the poor, the aged, the sick, the
helpless, the disabled...

Governments have to decide
how much value to place on fixing roads that kill
people, how much are taxpayers willing to spend?
Families have to decide on how long to keep their
ailing relatives alive? How much is a human life
worth?

Human lives should have equal value, but obviously
they don't.

There are "Values" and there are "values"...

It is your belief system that dictates the importance of value of things to you. It is subjective to yourself.

For the haves and have-nots, the values as they perceive of themseleves and from others in their circumstances is highly subjective and conditioned. And when you say "value" which you did not define specifically for your argument, a person who values himself highly could be deemed "unvalueable" by others. Other values ascribed to a person is then dependent on who is valuing you (e.g. receiving benefits from you), who has emotionally attached to you and specific social needs that changes over time. This kind of value can be gained by an individual through hard work.

I also venture to say that your own self esteem plays a significant role in determining your perceived small-values.

Your question sounds quite typical of the way western worlds view the developing world, a view that your extraneous possessions/needs determine alone the value of an individual in society, without considering sociatal differences. It also sound of a I-know-best pity-you attitude.

To me Value remains a belief system (not denominated in $$/needs) and is absolute based on democratic principles. As Col correctly pointed out the basic Values of human rights are equal for all. We are all born into different circumstances and challenges in life. From this perspective obviously we're not "equal", but this does not mean we are not of equal Value as human beings and the circumstances in which you are born is not a matter of your choosing. It does not impact the positive steps and democratic principles our societies have adopted. The way out of poverty and other adversities is to have strong societies providing opportunities and value contributions and nation building, rather than playing victims or saviours. This is as much an individual's responsibility, as that of a society.

Humans valuable?.
I don't think so.
6,000,000,000 polluters and despoilers.
Feed the stupid and next year there are 10 percent more.
Religion makes people stupid and every living thing suffers.
Enough I say.

I thought this would get more posts, it's one of the most interesting questions I've seen here in a while.

This is a question I've really grappled with.

I'd love to be able to simply say yes and leave it at that, but I tend to be the sort of person who picks at such things and attempts to place them within a political and social framework... realistically, I'm afraid I can't just leave it at that.

(Actually, the issue that gives me the most grief is gun control - my entire social {non economic} worldview is predicated on liberalism and free choice but I loathe the idea of the public having free access to guns. Due to the consequences, I really don't know how to reconcile this. As a result I constantly revisit the issue in my mind. I believe personal responsibility is the answer to most questions, but in this case I can't resolve things.)

I have been very lucky - from a young age, my family travelled and it became a habit for me as I grew up. Thus, I have lived in a variety of places.
In some instances, I spent extended periods in places that were very clearly impoverished.
I was gifted with an education and the ability to teach others skills that would assist them in gaining employment. Granted, by our standards the potential employment wasn't all that flash, but I know for a fact it assisted those people.

When I ask then, if my presence wasn't more valuable than one of the other villagers, am I being conceited? I really don't think I am. I'm simply being honest.

Education counts. It improves the worth of an individual in all the non-philosophical ways that matter in this competitive world.

I would say that all newborn babies are equal, for no other reason than we don't know their capabilities. It's rare, but a genius can be born from the poorest, least educated couples imaginable - in most cases however, nobody would ever know that this child had the potential to qualify for mensa membership.

People are born with equal value, but that value depreciates.

Maintaining and improving that value is another question entirely.

Some interesting responses.

Terms like equal value or human rights are not naturally given they are man-made concepts. Collectively we might determine that our lives are equally valuable and that there are some basic human rights to which we suscribe. There are very good reasons for doing this.

Different societies and cultures may differ on what constitutes rights or value. In some societies women are less valued in others those of contrary belief systems might be persecuted and less valued. The list is endless.

How would we define 'value'. Is someone more valuable because they contribute more to the group and thus the overall wellbeing or survival of the group? In more primitive times this may have been the case.

I believe we have to work from the premise that all lives have equal value even if we are not all born into 'equal' situations. Hopefully more democractic societies will seek to establish equal access to opportunity.

Contribution is an interesting concept too. How are we to assess the worth of someone's contribution? Is a rich man who creates employment for others any more worthy than a poorer man who grows his own food and provides for his family and village the best he can given the circumstances he has been born into?

I have a great problem with the concept. I would like to believe that all humans have equal worth.

However, if there were two babies one blind, deaf with a rudimentary brain and the other a healthy normal infant with no obvious defects and I were a person who could save the life of only one of them it would not be a difficult choice.

If I had the same sort of choice and one of the individuals was Barack Obama and the other was one of his relatives in Africa who might have an even greater intelligence but was an illiterate subsistence farmer it would also be an easy choice.

However, all four examples above should have equal rights to due process under the law.

I'd suggest that the issue is not so much about value, rather priority.

That which is closer to me or which I see as adding to what is important to me gets a higher priority from me regardless of it's 'value'.

Maybe that equates to the personal value of something or someone as opposed to the idea of an intrinsic value.

R0bert

yes, also the amount of compassion available. When I used to work for welfare there was a thing called compassion fatigue.

So I agree, preference and values radiates out from ones own priorities, and there isn't an endless supply.

Also I agree with most of the other points, mainly what people or groups give and take from other groups or our society.

If we have to be political about it, which we do, I'd think the fairest thing was to offer, as much as possible, an equal start for everyone. Their assets, handicaps, good and bad choices etc are theirs and who ever they inflict of share them with.

All lives have equal value.

According to the law of nature, no. It was only as long ago as in the early decades of last century that even we in Western societies died in droves before the age of thirty from whooping cough, tetanus, diptheria, and even common blood poisoning from a scratch, not to mention flus, and pneumonia and tuberculosis etc. It didn’t matter how talented, beautiful or useful to society we were.

Only the genetically fittest survived. A walk around any cemetery will verify this.

Obviously the laws that govern this planet don’t rate us with the same value as we do ourselves.

Looking at it from the human perspective, we should treat our fellow humans as having value and be respectful of them. I do not however feel as though this applies to serial killers. I also do not believe in life at any price. Depending on the level of sickness, deformity or injury.

Sharkfin,

Sounds a bit like the *tolerance for just tolerances sake* mindset

“This is a question I've really grappled with. I'd love to be able to simply say yes and leave it at that, but…”

Same here TRTL. A damn hard one isn’t it! I’ve really battled for the last few days to work out how to address it.

David f, you present a couple of clear examples of human life not having equal value.

As an ecologist, I look for comparisons in the natural world. For just about any given animal species, we can see that different individuals have different values. The dominant male is much more important than non-breeding males. Young healthy adults are more important than old or sickly individuals. New-born young are much less important than older juveniles that have survived the high mortality phase. A small number of individuals are more important than a big number that stress the basics food sources and end up fighting amongst themselves or between family groups as a result.

You can look at any one of a wide variety of factors and they all indicate that there is an enormous difference between the values of individuals, at any one time, and that an individual’s value can change greatly over time.

Why should it be any different with humans?

The following has been sent to the wrong string.

Dear Ludwig,

You wrote: Is the value of a desperately poor child’s life, amongst hundred of millions of similarly poor children in Bangladesh worth the same as that of someone like Barack Obama or Bill Gates?

In writing you have mixed two questions - that of tribe and that of status.

Barack Obama and Bill Gates belong to our tribe. The Bangladeshis don't. There are high status individuals in Bangladesh. Perhaps you phrased the question the way you did to put a perception as all Bangladeshis as poor. Of course their average income is much less than ours, but all Bangladeshis are not poor. Some of our children are treated horribly. Occasionally the newspapers have an item of one of our children battered to death.

I have been postulating about your reasons but really don't know why you phrased it that way. It leads to a question of mine. Is tribe or status a more potent identification with most people? There have been a great many anti-Muslim and anti-Israel attitudes expressed on these strings. For the people on the OLO strings it seems to me that tribe is much more important than status.

Meredith- sounds like tolerance for just tolerance sake.

Are You referring to the fact that I think it is the height of cruelty and cowardice by Society to force SEVERELY disabled people and those in vegetative states to struggle so horrendously every day of their lives. I feel so sad for those people when I see them and I think how can society be so cruel and gutless. Selfishly worried Only about their own place in heaven if they allow them to die peacefully by human hand.

Sharkfin,

Nope I wasn't, I was referring to the idea that we must love and accept everything regardless of any fact or right or wrong.

It is a retardation of tolerance, it has become tolerance merely to be seen to be tolerant. I was agreeing with your last para, sorry it was unclear.

But while I am here, I will say I disagree with euthanasia deeply and dread someone deciding that on my behalf. It's not religious either it is an atheistic fear of death, to me the end, and a treasuring of every minute of my life...

I don't think we can decide that for others at all. Though if asked by someone in their right mind, yes it'd be cowardly to leave them alive suffering when they don't want it.

What I fear is the righteous decisions by doo-gooders that I may be one who would have wanted that.

My life has upmost value to ME :P

Meredith, thanks for your reply, sorry I misunderstood.

As a matter of interest, I was reading a while back about some doctor who had tattooed on his chest DO NOT RESUSITATE. He said what people don't realise is for every person who fully recovers when resusitated there are many who are revived and left brain damaged because their brain has been without oxygen for too long.

He was in the older vintage and I guess that makes him less likely to want to risk being resusitated because he doesn't have that many years left anyway. Old people are understandibly less upset by the thought of death.