The value of life: perspectives and philosophical definitions

¶ … value of life? Well, this is theoretical, very general question may actually depends on whose life it is that you are talking about and how you define 'value'. Then again, it may be a meaningless question that may be rhetorical and a red herring since life may have no 'value' or no 'purpose' and may simply be that which the person makes it.

Let's examine these questions from four different perspectives: the question itself (What is the value of life); whose life; religious perspective on the matter; sociological perspective on the matter. We will then proceed to examine the question from the perspective of diverse thinkers.

What is the value of life

We can talk about something having value when we touch it, feel it, examine it under the microscope, assess it in various ways and can physically measure it against something else. In other words, we can far more objectively and assuredly tag value onto something that is physical rather than something that is not. Compare for instance, to the metaphysical factor of 'love'. Now, artists, poets and so forth may describe this as a valuable sentiments but since it is an emotion that exists in the abstract and since we can neither measure nor evaluate it, we cannot touch it, place it under the microscope, come to any unequivocal agreement about it and, therefore, we cannot accordingly measure it nor tag on it a certain percentage of value. The same exists with any metaphysical factor, and 'life' is no exception.

The question of 'value' or purpose of life is -- as positivists would argue -- a meaningless one, particularly since life may have no purpose.

What is the 'value' of life also turns around on the definition of 'value'. Should this consist of happiness or morality, or substance and, if so, in terms of which substance? One answer is that value is defined as the circumstance where the individual has chosen worthy choices (Nielsen 1964) or achieves satisfaction in his life's choices (Wohlgennant 1981). However, these answers too are subjective and broad; whilst one may concur that the individual's life may be valuable, another may disagree. Others say that the choices are those that render a life coherent and transcend human nature as well as make it intelligible (Levy 2005). Philosophers are still conflicted about what it is that makes a 'meaningful' life; after all we each have different perspectives.

3. Religion and the value of life

Theology and belief systems have their own ideas regarding value of life. Judeo-based religions, for instance, affirm that man is created in the image of his or her creator and therefore possesses intrinsic value. The more he or she become Divine and uses her potential in as valuable way, the more valuable her life becomes.

Buddhism, however, may have a different idea of life. To them, life is suffering. Death which symbolizes release of suffering and more substantial eternity and existence may be more valuable than life. Certain belief system has a similar position today.

Other perspectives, however, such as atheism may place far less value (to none at all -- for instance certain strands of existentialism) on life. After all, existentialists, for instance, see life as a meaningless bauble that goes on and one in a tiring nonsensical senseless motion. Life is stupid; it has no value. This would have been Schopenhauer's pessimistic stance. It may have been Kierkegaard's too for all his religious postulating. It is debatable whether or not this was Nietzsche's. Although Nietzsche may have said that the life of the Superman has value; the life of the herd less and this consists largely of assisting the Superman.

Other existentialists, however, may attribute a greater substance to the value of life possibly taking the Socratic approach that life's value depends on what you make of it. Compare it to the germ of life in an oak tree. The oak tree has potential to become something magnificent and to give shade to so many people. Or it can refuse to grow and stunt. If you think that the quality of providing shade is important as well as that the idea of beauty and growth has merit, well then you may consider the life of the oak tree to be worth something, since its life has value. The same applies to the life of any animate being: to the extent that it uses its potential, thus the extent of the value of its life. Religion, therefore, gives its own answer to the value of life.

4. Sociology and the value of life

The value of life too differs according to cultures with some cultures respecting and valuing life more than others. Western cultures, for instance, may value life more than that of struggling individuals in certain other cultures. We know, for instance, that certain people in some Islamic cultures are all too keen that they and their children become shahid i.e. martyrs since they see life as possessing value in killing others. This gives their life meaning. Religious fundamentalists of many other groups have had similar ideologies, and so to such people, life may only have value when it is sacrificed for a cause.

In such a manner, we may divide the perspective of religions and societies on the value of life into two categories: God-centered views and soul-centered views. The former bases value of life on connection with a God; the latter bases it on connection with a soul (and may not necessarily believe in a God).

The God-centered view is not only that God created person in His image but that he also gave man to purpose with which to conduct his life and that each and every person is important even in a miniscule way.

The soul-centered view echoes that of Tolstoy who argued that creating an act of purpose gives life meaning and that to make this difference to the world requires having a soul (Morris 1992, 26).

Other approaches on the value of life

Other perspectives that do not believe in God or soul assume a subjectivist stance and argue that it is love that provides the greatest value for our existence (e.g. Frankfurt 2002, 250). Meaningfulness, they argue too, should be approached from the stance of what the individual person finds valuable form life and meaningful for her. In this way, the view is a subjective one. Frankfurt (1982) further argues that meaning can be gained from losing oneself in work that is meaningful and absorbing to one. However, what if one is using this absorption to harm others: is one's life valuable then? Hitler, for instance, was totally absorbed in his work and found meaning in it: can we say his life was valuable?

We can ground the responses not in those of the individual but in those of the community, or in those of people from diverse perspectives (Darwall 1983, chs. 11-12). These provide us with a more-ranging perspective, but may not utterly avoid the subjective stance.

Objectivists have the opposite stance to subjectivists. They believe that meaning is inherent in transcendental values that exist extraneous to us, either because they are grounded in God or because they exist in other transcendental conventions. Morality and creativity may be two such examples. They do not depend on our say-so but are rather imposed on us as a wiser more objective way of ensuring value and purpose in life.

Objectivism usually joins up with subjectivism in that it mingles sentiments such as affection, cognition and feelings, with following the 'right path'. This can be captured by Susan Wolf's pithy slogan: "Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness" (Wolf 1997, 211)

In a paradoxical sense, this can mean that that life's is meaningless if one absorbs oneself in a program which one is bored by or detests (particularly if one throws one's whole life in that) - even if that program were important. This again opens us up, however, to the Hitler problem. Others, however, argue that one need not necessarily like or be absorbed in a program to still possess a meaningful life. Mother Theresa, for instance, may or may not have enjoyed her work. This makes no difference. The labor that she was involved in was uplifting and meaningful. She, therefore, (according to this opinion) had a meaningful life.

As we see, discussion of a meaningful life goes back and forth and over and under each other in seemingly endless circles. At the end of the day, it is epistemological and metaphysical and may never really yield anything solid.

Other famous postulations of a meaningful life include those by Aristotle who define it as one of the intellect; Marx who sees it as one of alienation, community, and autonomy; Tolstoy who sees it as one of labor; and Nietzsche who defines it as possessing superlative power, creativity, and individuality.

Then again, we have Nozick who says that meaningfulness is that which transcends the limits of the (Nozick 1989, chs. 15-16) -- this is very similar to losing oneself in flow. Whilst others urge that it constitutes a life that is dedicated to altruism of people and animals (e.g. Singer 1995, chs. 10-11)

Conclusion

In short, achieving a life of value is not so simple since this may actually be a rhetorical question that has no answer. The answer depends on subjectivist response, religious or sociological perspective, one's own experiences and simply on the way that one defines 'value'. The answers may range from spiritualism to nihilism with everything in between and even though they sprawl across the board, they have one commonality: all lack conclusive answers making this issue one of life's open-ended questions.