Write An Essay On The Value Of Life By Kennedy Ripley

The value of Life

The value of life has been a controversial topic among people for as long as tragedy has taken place. To many people, life can be calculated and crunched as numbers and given to the friends and family in the form of monetary compensation from the government; others, however, believe the memories created and the life lived is not capable of being replaced with the cold numbers of money. With bitter grievances from loved ones being a constant flow to the government and legalities being given back as reasoning, the matter of monetary gain, be it for greed or healing, has been at the forefront of people’s mind. The value of life is an argument that is heavily argued on the basis of morale, pain, and anger from all angles of

In the article “What is a Life Worth?” written by Amanda Ripley, she takes a close look at the state of the country during the aftermath of 9/11. The country came together and, after such incident, the government decided to give back to the families of the victims in the form of monetary compensation. Kenneth Feinberg, the government official entrusted with the distribution of the money in the program called the Victim Compensation Fund, described the effort as, “ … the country’s largest experiment in paying mass victims and their families …”(Ripley 3). Many people viewed this effort as meaningful and gracious, however, many of the families began to take offense to this act and questioned the method of calculations, accusing it of being “belittling” to the lost life. Maureen Halvorson, a widow and sister of a murdered brother, told Feinberg, “I just can’t accept the fact that the Federal Government is saying my husband and brother are worth nothing.”(Ripley

In order to come up with the amount a family would receive, the income of the person, what their insurance was like, and how much money it amounted to on an “easy-to-read” chart; basically calculating how much that person contributed to the economy. As a result of this method, the amount of money a family would receive was skewered by a number of factors and caused people to have a change of opinion, calling the distribution unfair. The way the government decided to compensate, the change of opinion was understandable and justified. Their program allowed for loopholes to be found and exploited, causing trouble on top of families feeling as if the amount of money they received was unfair. After continuous outrage, government officials began to argue the legalities of the program and the true core of it; best said by University of Texas law professor Philip Bobbitt, “Courts always grant money on the basis of a person’s earning power in life. That’s because the courts are not attempting to replace ‘souls’.” (Ripley