The Value of Human Life

The atheist may claim that life has more meaning because it is short. It is precious because it doesn’t last.

This sounds perfectly reasonable and persuasive. After all, we value gold due to the fact that it is rare.

But then again, so what? Once we die, we will no longer care nor be able to care, therefore life only has value to us as long as we are alive, and after we die it only has value to those we leave behind. Either way, it is subjective and therefore an illusory fabrication.

What about relationships? Do we value good relationships because good relationships are so rare, or do we value them because they are so rewarding? We treasure them more than gold, yet gold is rarer. Few people have pure gold but plenty have good relationships. We are all born from relationships of some kind, but who can say they are born from gold?

It seems that we value relationships because we know they last and because we know they can last. A person remains in a relationship that has troubles because they believe it will last. They fight for it because they see it has potential. Otherwise they would simply ride the tide until it ends naturally.

Furthermore, relationships transcend life. Though one dies, their relations to the people they left behind stay “alive” Whether theologically, philosophically or logically, no one takes gold with them when they die, but relationships follow them where ever they go.

Thus, we value life because we are alive. Life has its value in living and living has its value in longevity, not in its shortness.

To the one who believes in God, life now becomes infinitely more precious because they know it can be infinite. A life of infinite potential that amounts to nothing is seen as pointless. It becomes a waste.

We are greatly grieved over the loss of a young life because we see a loss of potential.
We are still saddened at the loss of one who is elderly, yet are comforted somewhat if they have lived a “full life”

Yet which life had “more value”? Who had more to offer to the world? The one full of life and wisdom or the one devoid of life or wisdom? We value them both because they both had the potential to offer us something in the fullness of their life. No matter whether it was long or short, we wish we had more of them.

The tragedy of humanity in relation to God is all the more tragic because the potential was there for so much more.

Contrary to atheist thought, life has value in and of itself and in its potential longevity, not its lack thereof.

They reverse this by claiming life has more value in and of itself because it is short. However, once life ceases, it is of no value. Can it even be argued it was valuable in the first place?
Ironically, I imagine one could make a strong case that life has value because it is subjective. It has value to the individual whose life it is and to every individual affected by their life.

Therefore, even if they die, their life’s value “lives on” in the hearts and minds of those close to them. And yet this is an entirely “spiritual” reality completely irrespective of the external physical world. How these individuals “feel” about this one life is irrelevant to the physical world in which they claim all reality consists.

Sure, they can use how they feel to affect the physical world around them on some level and influence the sequence of events that play out in the physical world, but ultimately it has no bearing on realities origin and eventual fate.

How they felt didn’t bring this world into being and will not wipe it out either right?

It would seem that life only has value to us on a “spiritual” level. We are less concerned with procreation than relation. But why is this in a purely material universe? Is this logical?

Furthermore, what can a “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” mentality do for life? Does it not cheapen life? Is this philosophy not rife today? People eat, drink, drug and shag to their hearts content. They stray ever so close to death by doing so and risk shortening the already short life they claim to “value” so much. Does this not seem self defeating and illogical?

Of course this would be a generalisation. It isn’t true of everyone who adopts this philosophy. But why not? It seems to me that it is not the case because few are 100% consistent with this philosophy.

Who takes it to its full extent in practice? Very few. Why? Because somewhere they value their life more than this. They know there is “more” to life than eating, drinking and being merry. But why?

How many of us find joy in eating, drinking and being merry alone? Is the loner truly merry and do they have joy? I suppose that experience would tell us otherwise.

Instead we find that these things are defined by the people we do them with. Relationships. Blood is thicker than water. Bros before Hoes. Whichever way you want to phrase it, at some level, relationships supersede everything else.

Can the reason for this purely be for procreation? Because it has a “beneficial survival advantage”? Beneficial for whom? For humanity? Well humanity is not a hive mind. As a whole, humanity does not care whether it survives or not. As a whole, it doesn’t matter.

What humanity wants isn’t the sum of its parts because every part wants something different.
It is on the individual level that humanity cares, and this individual is linked to a network of other individuals. Again, it comes back to relationships.

As a complete entity, humanity doesn’t care.

As a network of individual entities, humans care.

It is ironic then that, individually, we are the opposite of the sum of our parts. Each of the 10 trillion cells in our body doesn’t care whether the body survives. Yet, knit together, these cells somehow come together to make up a being that does care.

It would seem then that, individually, we are not the sum of our physical parts. We are the sum of our physical parts combined with something ultimately indescribable and yet fundamental.

It is that indescribable entity that makes life worth something.

It is that indescribable entity that relates from one human being to another.

It is ultimately this indescribable entity that extends from man to God and comes from God to man.

Thus, it is reasonable and seemingly unavoidable that the value of humanity is defined by its origin, by its relation to that origin and its relation in and of itself.

We come from the infinite and value life due to its infinite potential. Only in the face of the infinite can this make sense, but only if the infinite is as personal or more so than we are.

It seems that we unavoidably come back to this concept of God. Why is this? Why is He / It / She / That always there? Why won’t they go away?

I suppose the simplest answer would be because:

...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. – Genesis 2:7