Value Of Life
1 Sherrod
Tiauna Sherrod
Mrs.Riezebos
ERWC
3 November 2014
The Value Of Life
“At first I gave the standard legal argument that I was not evaluating the intrinsic moral worth of any individual. I was basing my decision on the law, just as juries did every day’’(Feinberg). The writer of this statement Kenneth Feinberg shows the way the government processed and how they distributed money between victims of September 11. Kenneth states that the government did not go off on the moral worth of an individual. They simply went off of what was in American law instead of valuing the victims on the way they lived. The way the government tried to value the lives of the victims was flawed in different areas of their point of view, and Kenneth Feinberg recognized this six years later. That a life’s value is more than how much a person can pay. I believe that no one should be able to put a value on life because they have nothing to justify it except for their opinion which a lot of people would most likely disagree with. I think that there shouldn’t be a value on a person’s life because everyone is different no one person is the same as the other, so you can not go off of a reasonable thing that can link individuals together.
The value of life is the one thing that everyone has their own opinion on, from the regular working class to the famous idealized figures, and to the government. Everyone has their own interpretation of how much a life is worth. The government viewed the value of life as just money to identify the person that was lost, and they did state that “We’re not trying to make you
2 Sherrod
psychologically whole’’(Ripley). They also stated “the courts are not attempting to replace
‘souls,’ says Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas who has written about the allocation of scarce resources in times of tragedy’’(Ripley). They value people more as objects than anything. Than with response to the people who were
Tiauna Sherrod
Mrs.Riezebos
ERWC
3 November 2014
The Value Of Life
“At first I gave the standard legal argument that I was not evaluating the intrinsic moral worth of any individual. I was basing my decision on the law, just as juries did every day’’(Feinberg). The writer of this statement Kenneth Feinberg shows the way the government processed and how they distributed money between victims of September 11. Kenneth states that the government did not go off on the moral worth of an individual. They simply went off of what was in American law instead of valuing the victims on the way they lived. The way the government tried to value the lives of the victims was flawed in different areas of their point of view, and Kenneth Feinberg recognized this six years later. That a life’s value is more than how much a person can pay. I believe that no one should be able to put a value on life because they have nothing to justify it except for their opinion which a lot of people would most likely disagree with. I think that there shouldn’t be a value on a person’s life because everyone is different no one person is the same as the other, so you can not go off of a reasonable thing that can link individuals together.
The value of life is the one thing that everyone has their own opinion on, from the regular working class to the famous idealized figures, and to the government. Everyone has their own interpretation of how much a life is worth. The government viewed the value of life as just money to identify the person that was lost, and they did state that “We’re not trying to make you
2 Sherrod
psychologically whole’’(Ripley). They also stated “the courts are not attempting to replace
‘souls,’ says Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas who has written about the allocation of scarce resources in times of tragedy’’(Ripley). They value people more as objects than anything. Than with response to the people who were