Value of Life

Value of life, is a very challenging concept, involving our hearts and minds in the controversial debate. What is it that we have but we fear to lose? What is it, making us cling to the prolonged notion of life, and scared of death?

The two positions arise, however, as the outcome of this question.

(I) Death deprives us of life, which is all we have, therefore it is the greatest of the losses.

 (II) Death is the end of the subject. It is a mere blank, not a great loss. There is no subject to experience that loss.

A number of ethical questions cluster around both ends of the human life span. Whether abortion is morally justifiable - has popularly been seen as depending on our understanding of 'when does a human life begin?' Many believe this to be not the right approach because it suggests that there might be a factual answer that we can somehow discover through advances in sciences. Instead they believe that what we need to consider 'what is it that makes killing a human being wrong?' and then consider whether these conditions and stipulations might, whatever they be, apply to the foetus in an abortion. There is no unanimously agreed upon answer, yet some philosophers have presented surprisingly strong arguments to the effect that not only the foetus but even the newborn infant has no right to life.

Whether be pre-natal, post-partum or post humous, the answer, an ethicist suffices to, is the Value of life. That probable and inevitable essence of Human Existence.

If DEATH is an Evil, it is not because of its positive features, but what it deprives us of viz. LIFE.

• Life has a value apart of its contents. Even when we take away all the good and bad experiences in life, what is left over, the base experience of life is valuable in itself. The value of life does not attach to mere organic survival, for instance, Surviving in a coma does not appeal to us. The good of life can be multiplied by time and more inevitably preferred than less.
• The state of being dead is not an evil in itself. It is not the apt reason to tag death as 'bad'. Death is not resultant of evil - that one who accumulates more, ends up dead. A temporary suspension of life is not regarded as a great misfortune in itself (as in pre-natal, in which we do not exist) is not regarded as misfortune.

In the light of the arguments hence put forth, the counter arguments have surfaced. First, it is dubious for anything to be evil unless it causes displeasure. ' How can deprivation of life be an evil unless someone minds the deprivation?'. Second, if a subject ceases to exist after death then how can it be a grave misfortune if there is no subject to experience it?. ' Who suffers the misfortune?'. Third, 'How can the period of non existence after our death be bad, if the period before our birth is not?'

Is it that,

1. The good or ill fortune depends on a person's history and possibilities, rather than just their momentary state. Therefore, a terrible misfortune can befall a person even though they are not around to experience the misfortune.
2. Even, though the subject does not survive, it can be still the subject of misfortune. If not dead, the subject would have continued enjoying whatever good there is in living.
3. The post humous sphere of time deprives us of the the life  we could have enjoyed if not dead. But this does not hold true of the pre-natal sphere, since we have not lived at all. This explains our attitude towards these two different states of our non - existent being.

But, the question still remains whether the non realization of the posiibility for further life is always a misfortune, or whether this depends on what can be naturally hoped for.
Perhaps, we can only regard as a misfortune those deprivations which add gratuitously to the inevitable evils we must endure. In this case, only premature death would be a great evil. whether we see death as a 'DEPRIVATION' is subjected to our own point of view.

Such views have been especially contested by those who claim that all HUMAN LIFE irrespective of its characteristics must be regarded as 'SACROSANCT'. The task for those who defend the sanctity of human life is to explain, if human life no matter what its character is especially worthy of protection. Explanations for this can be cited through various religious doctrines, which state, that all humans are the images of GOD or that all humans have immortal soul.

In this current debate, however, the supporters of VALUE OF LIFE, have eschewed religious arguments without trying to find a more secular and rational base.