Value of a person?

[Rapscallion]

How much is a person worth? How do we define worth of a person?

The healthcare system debate got me thinking about this. The US system is sort-of along the lines of if you can afford healthcare, you get it, but if not then you have far less value. Fewer resources are going to be expended on you, because you've proven yourself to be less of an asset to your nation.

That's just one aspect, but using that as an example, the Darwinist in me thinks it's not that unreasonable as ideas go. It's natural selection. The humanist in me thinks that we need to ascertain basic needs and allowances made to people - education, health, a basic standard of living - to allow people to live without fear of poverty or disease, and to allow them a chance to further themselves.

The cynic in me knows that a certain percentage of people will always feature in the biased press as lazy sods (which some are) who are sponging off everyone else's efforts. Can't ignore that, but I can't think of a way to do away without it.

I think I'm on a mixture of all three - the cynic speaks for himself, I agree with the humanist about basic needs and providing them, and the Darwinist says that those who can afford higher levels of education/healthcare should get it if they so choose.

However, we're still measuring life in monetary terms. Is there a better way?

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

That's not Darwinism. That's Social Darwinism. A completely different concept. There's no evolutionary traits being selected for in your scenario.

Personally, I'd be in favour of actual Darwinism, if we're not going to help everyone. That means diabetics don't get insulin, no cancer treatments, no epi-pens if you have an allergic reaction. For anyone. You can get bones set, or things like that, but if you've got a biological failing, you're off. To me, it's an all-or-nothing. Either everyone who can be helped is helped regardless of status, or no one does. Why? Because otherwise you ARE putting value on a person, and that always boils down to money. I may argue that a skilled poet or a painter bring great value to a society, but without anything tangible to point to, most people will argue that they're no more useful than a sponge. Since you can't measure the value of a person's experiences, knowledge, insights, morality, actions, etc. you've got no basis to really compare two people. Is someone with three kids more valuable than someone with two? What if the person with two kids volunteers at a youth centre, while the one with three kids works all the time and never sees them? What if the person with three kids works all the time because they're working minimum wage at a charity they believe in? There's simply too many intangible factors to consider in trying to compare the value of a life.

Or it's about $0.98 for the chemicals, depending on the market.

[DrFaroohk]

They need to have a universal measuring stick for how much of a dickhead you are, as well. While cultures differ, there are some general things that make someone a dickhead and they need to have their lives placed at lower value than someone who is not a dickhead. Only then will the human race progress to something better than a world full of dickheads.

[Rapscallion]

That's not Darwinism. That's Social Darwinism. A completely different concept. There's no evolutionary traits being selected for in your scenario.

Evolutionary survival traits are determined by the environment. Just because we're no longer running away from sabre-toothed tigers doesn't mean to say that there are no other useful traits. If the survivors of that left a trait that their descendants knew that running from fur with teeth, then fair enough, but it doesn't guarantee a set of instincts that will give a better chance of success in interviews for the jobs that pay more. If you don't have the trait that determines that you're going to be calm and assured in an interview, then you're not going to earn as much (as a general rule).

Evolution still applies, but it's in a different environment. The person who has the least applicable traits to survive is less likely to pass on their genes.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Evolution still applies, but it's in a different environment. The person who has the least applicable traits to survive is less likely to pass on their genes.

Rapscallion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man

<snip>

After the landslide 1906 election, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill began to reform society according to the Rowntree Report. The report detailed poor people from York and explained that although they tried hard to lift themselves of their poverty, it was nearly always impossible. This contributed to changing the prevalent social view that the poor were lazy and stupid

Like I said. Social Darwinism. I did use the wrong adjective in my original post. Not "completely" different, but I blame a temporary distemper in my humours for that oversight. A better term would have encapsulated "related but separate," since the actual having of the traits does not always ensure success if your position is low enough, and the proper traits can be imparted after birth, thus not being evolution by the strictest terms.

[Rapscallion]

Hmm - nature versus nurture time, right?

Will have to think about this somewhat.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

They need to have a universal measuring stick for how much of a dickhead you are, as well. While cultures differ, there are some general things that make someone a dickhead and they need to have their lives placed at lower value than someone who is not a dickhead. Only then will the human race progress to something better than a world full of dickheads.

You know, this is really very funny. I snorted my drink.

I think you're onto something here, actually. If we were still living in tribal cultures, probably the Dickhead Trait would be weeded out a lot faster than it is in our culture. I mean, think about it. In our society, dickheads are actually at a slight to moderate advantage. They're all about Numero Uno. A tribal culture is about the group...hence a dickhead would not be of much value. He'd be at a disadvantage.

[Boozy]

Yet if a dickhead provides something worthwhile to the group, they keep him around. That's why so many hotshot actors and athletes are dickheads. They can get away with it. Less talented individuals cannot.

[Slytovhand]

While cultures differ, there are some general things that make someone a dickhead

Actually, I totally disagree with this. Unfortunately, it's not true.. different cultures, different set of pre-req's for being a dickhead. Let's take a fairly innocuous example - driving! We would think, coming from a culture that has it's laws (and obvious penalties) and policing, and the infrastructure, that driving erratically would name someone a 'dickhead'. Go to.. China, India, Indonesia, etc etc etc, where most of the above is.. well, less improved than ours, and driving erratically is typical. So, while in our society causing an accident may be the result of being a dickhead, over there it's just a day to day norm...

Rape (to go to the opposite end of the argument) is, in our culture, highly condemned. In other cultures, it might be frowned upon... a little bit.... in public.... if necessary...........

All cultures have the 'dickhead gene', but how that manifests is different across the globe.


Back to Rap's opener.. have you read Marx? He would have said (and did write) that in a capitalistic society, you are more likely to have people scunging off the system. While the system does not adequately 'reward' or 'acknowledge' a person's worth and contribution (instead, the person who makes all the profit gets all the reward and acknowledgement... why is Bill Gates at the top, and not his programmers. Or the ppl in the factories who actually put the computers together?? (NB: yes, I know he's not into hardware... just making a point). If the situation were reversed - the marketers and investors - got the short end of the stick, and the actual workers were honestly rewarded for their efforts, then people wouldn't slack off, and they'd be far more likely to contribute to society.

Money is supposed to be about equal trade... how to calculate what my value to society is, compared to your value to society. It no longer is....

[BlaqueKatt]

If the survivors of that left a trait that their descendants knew that running from fur with teeth

not much to add but I found the idea of fur with teeth amusing.......

[Nyoibo]

Well the brain didn't really have time to process much more than that before it got eaten.

[Rapscallion]

not much to add but I found the idea of fur with teeth amusing.......

I've met Gatekeeper's wall of cats.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Well the brain didn't really have time to process much more than that before it got eaten.

If that were true then we wouldn't have evolved intelligence to begin with. Though I do marvel at how incredibly unlikely true sapience is. The world is dangerous, so what does proto-ape do? Does he get faster, stronger, tougher, or move to a better place? Nope, he learns to think about getting faster, stronger, etc. It serves us well now, but those first few steps on the path to big nutrient hungry brains must have been a really stupid choice.

We would all like to believe that a human has infinite value, but that's just not possible in a land of limited resources. Every culture has to make the decision to lable a human life in dollar amounts.
I would like to throw out a number of $20,000 per year between death and average life expectency. Any takers?