What Is A Life Worth By Amanda Ripley

The Value of Life Today’s society often asks the question on how a human’s life should be valued or if a value should be placed on each person individually. The answer for this question varies for each person due to their own views. Parts of society think that some lives are worth more than others, have a higher price than others, or are more valuable than others. The way that society puts a “value” on life is based off of monetary terms and conditions. So they put a “price tag” on a life depending on an individual’s wealth. This should not be the case. Life itself should be valued very highly. No value or price should be placed on a life, especially if that is based off of monetary terms. All lives should have an equivalent value no matter

Most would agree with this altogether and that is completely fine and normal. But the lives in society in general should all be equal. Each person is unique in their own right. People have different jobs and make different salaries, and this is completely fine. In the article ‘What Is a Life Worth’ by Amanda Ripley, it is said that a woman named Lisa wrote a note saying “Attitude to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do” (Paragraph 30). Here it is shown that Lisa values attitude more than anything else. This relates to life altogether. The point being made here is that lives should not be seen from a monetary standpoint. People should not look down on other because of an income. They should only look down on other based off of their

This system compensates families according to the income they would have made until retirement. In my opinion, this system that the government used was used correctly. I believe that the families should receive a compensation similar to that of the deceased one’s income. Suppose there was a lawyer who made an annual income of $500,000, along with a fireman who made $80,000, if they both passed in a tragedy, the lawyers family should receive more income. The lawyer’s family should get more income not because their life was worth more but simply because they normally would have had his income to rely on in the first place. Suppose the planes never crashed in 9/11, then those who became deceased would still be alive and would have brought home the income they normally had. So in the case of a tragedy, a “Human Life Value” approach could be done. But in my opinion, calling it “Human Life Value” is wrong and perhaps calling it a “Family Reimbursement Program” or something along those lines would be a more appropriate name. As said earlier, everyone is different, and all families live differently. The compensations should be given to maintain each families’ specific standard of living in which they had. On another note, some people sue for more money when a loved one passes in certain tragedies. Here is one sad example on how some lives are valued. In the article ‘What Is a