When discussing the value of human life, people (especially those directly affected by deaths) tend to become upset. They cannot seem to agree on how to measure the value of a life. A prime example of this happened following the 9/11 incident, when many deaths required government payouts to loved ones. Someone had to determine how much to give each family—and they had to base it off of something.
According to Amanda Ripley’s article, “What is a Life Worth?,” “... 86 percent [of those who took a TIME/CNN poll] said all families should receive the same amount” (57). This agreement, however, does not hold true when it becomes a matter of how to base the value. Some want to weigh it according to the deceased one’s contribution to society (such as their expected future earnings), so that those left behind can “maintain something resembling their current standard of living” (58). Others say to just forget about a person’s individual worth, and give everyone equal amounts, making arguments like, “My tax money should not be given to someone with a $750,000 mortgage to pay who needs a set of fresh, matching towels … every season” (58)—implying that their money is being wasted instead of helping those who need it. …show more content…
The one who determined the 9/11 compensation system has a potential solution this problem. Kenneth Feinberg had a change of heart after seeing the reactions of many people suffering loss. In his article, “What is the Value of a Human Life?,” he explains how he came to change, stating that he “didn’t believe it [him]self” (66), referring to his argument of not evaluating anyone’s “moral worth” (66). Because of the guilt he felt for all of the families of 9/11’s victims, when “asked to design ... a compensation system” (66), he made sure that “all victims ... would receive the same”
According to Amanda Ripley’s article, “What is a Life Worth?,” “... 86 percent [of those who took a TIME/CNN poll] said all families should receive the same amount” (57). This agreement, however, does not hold true when it becomes a matter of how to base the value. Some want to weigh it according to the deceased one’s contribution to society (such as their expected future earnings), so that those left behind can “maintain something resembling their current standard of living” (58). Others say to just forget about a person’s individual worth, and give everyone equal amounts, making arguments like, “My tax money should not be given to someone with a $750,000 mortgage to pay who needs a set of fresh, matching towels … every season” (58)—implying that their money is being wasted instead of helping those who need it. …show more content…
The one who determined the 9/11 compensation system has a potential solution this problem. Kenneth Feinberg had a change of heart after seeing the reactions of many people suffering loss. In his article, “What is the Value of a Human Life?,” he explains how he came to change, stating that he “didn’t believe it [him]self” (66), referring to his argument of not evaluating anyone’s “moral worth” (66). Because of the guilt he felt for all of the families of 9/11’s victims, when “asked to design ... a compensation system” (66), he made sure that “all victims ... would receive the same”