Latzen 1

Tyson Latzen

Mrs. Bowyer

English- Per. 4

1 Nov. 2018

The Value of Life

As a society and as individuals, we should recognize that life holds value. Life holds

value based on how much income that member of the family brought into the household over

that persons estimated lifetime. We base the value of life on this solution because it is the only

fair and logical solution for today's economy that allows the struggling family members to

continue a more normal life . This solution is in the best interest for the families who suffered the

loss of a loved one so that they can get as much support as possible to rebuild themselves and go

back to their daily life again, along with giving a non-bias amount of money to everyone to fulfil

the income needed in order to support the house and family as if they did not financially lose the

loved one.

We recognize the value of life this way because in a time of a massive crisis, you need to

find a way to alleviate pressure on the economy and citizens by working in everyone's best

interest and by giving each family the estimated amount of income that the deceased family

member would have earned and contributed to the family. This is done by, “deducting life

insurance, pension, social security death benefits, and workers compensation” (Ripley 8). This

system ensures that everyone who needs federal aid goes through the same process and gets

equal financial help to each of the grieving families. When I say equal, this doesn't mean

everyone is alloted the same dollar amount but they receive enough to sustain their normal life
 Latzen 2

without taking a huge financial blow.This takes the financial worry out of the mourning process,

which allows the family to have a healthier acceptance of what happened. The government does

this to “ensure that they maintain something resembling their current standard of living”(Ripley

11). This is what the government considers equal, a substantially gifted income that would've

been expected if the deceased member was still alive, which is statistically true. This is statistical

true because it allows everyone to get through the grieving process without falling into a

financial deficit and lose everything they have along with the loved family member. Having that

ability to not worry would definitely make an impact on how the families rebound after as well.

They’d be assured a way of income to secure the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to.

Imagine what it would be like to lose a family member that supported half of the households

income and having to resort to your own personal assets to continue your current lifestyle, all

while mourning the lost loved one. This would be terribly hard and heart wrenching. This is why

I consider this method a logical and even solution to an individual's economic value of life.

This way of valuing life isn’t just logical and fair, it is for the best interest of the families.

The government is responsible for creating fair solutions that are in the best interests of its

citizens which is why, “The government, for the first time ever, has agreed to write large checks

to victims families without litigation”(Ripley 5). The government isn't trying to assume that the

amount of money given could in anyway replace who you lost. The money given is the value of

that person's life financially to the family. It is given so the process of mourning and restitution

can begin with more ease and less pressure on the backs of such a huge portion of an economy

and the citizens. Even though these are the government's intentions, “families will have to agree

never to sue anyone for the attacks”(Ripley 9). This was done as a safeguard so that no one could
 Latzen 3

sue the government and be unable to ensure the resolution of the crisis. If the government got

sued for the attack or for unfair funding and lost, how would the rest of the people who need aid

and how would they have received it? It would destroy the economy and make any chance of

recovery very doubtful. .

Some people do consider this method wrong and not the way we should value life by

saying, “I can’t accept the fact that the government is saying my husband and brother are worth

nothing”(Ripley 13). They think it's wrong for them to receive no money when in reality if the

government would have given her financial aid it would have made the whole process unfair by

not following the “every award will be based on cold calculus” rule, which would make the

whole system underfunded and run out of recoursed (Ripley 5). This quote from Feinberg

explains how most victims viewed this processes, “I was basing my decision on the law, just as

juries did everyday. But this explanation fell on deaf ears. Grieving families couldn't hear

it”(Fienberg 4). Most people can't understand why the government wouldn't give equal dollar

amounts of support to every victim but in reality it would help some tremendously and others

barely at all. Shakespeare’s the Hamlet says, “Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man's

contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the

spurns”(​(III.I.16)​). Hamlet's quote says that when something wrong happens to a loved one and the

law does not act upon it, it causes the grievance to be more painful than with relief and support

from a governing entity.

As a society and as individuals we should economically value life based off of a strict

mathematical equation which gives equal support to each family. We need to focus on building
 Latzen 4

our society after a huge crisis in order to allow our citizens to recover and return to a form of

normality. This is the reasoning behind statistically valuing life in an economy.

Word Count: 875

Work Cited

Feinberg, Kenneth. “What is the Value of a Human Life?” This I Believe. National Public

Radio,

25 May 2008. Web

Ripley, Amanda. “What is a Life Worth?” Time 11 Feb. 2002.22-27. Print

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Act III, Sc. 1: Hamlet’s “​To be, or not to be​” soliloquy