English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Nicola Brown, 49, Devon, UK. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/14066.page

2006-09-26 01:17:00 · 103 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

103 answers

It's a fact due to the way we evolved, and we have not eveolved out of this 'instinct' yet.

Bottomline, the people closer to us mean more to us. The definition of closer is what metters.

This is not only immediate family, but also people in our social circle, people in our village/town/city/county/state/country... Also some individuals are also considered close to us, such as tv or movies people, certain politicians...

The reason is that in as early human society was structured, in tribes, working for the tribe was important for survival.

Now, it's not only the people themselves, but also what they consider close to them.

Remember the TV series about animal rescues in the US? People cheer while helicopters are sent to rescus a moose trapped in an ice hole, but are not aware that for a fraction of teh cost, a human life could be saved in Africa. The Moose is 'American' so worth a lot. I used the US as an example but I mean that the degree of insularity of people is an important factor.

As for TV personalities, recall the recent outpouring of grief over the death of Steve Irwin. I was shocked myself. He became part of our life through the TV; that's another way to be close. This could be becauseofthe cause he was fighting for, or for his own personality, or both.

Similarly certain political leaders generate a huge following across the world because of what they represent; again one feels close (in terms of ideals).

If we want to do soemthing about this, and treat lives equally, what we need is information, why do we keep seeing images of 9/11 but not of Darfur. 9/11 is over and done with; people who died have died; no more people are dying on such a scale. In Darfur people are still being killed.

What we need is media that seeks to change people's opinions to make an even field, not one who has its own agenda, or merely follows the monsters it helped create.

2006-09-26 13:45:30 · answer #1 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 8 1

Well the simple answer is because some lives are actually worth more than others...let me give you a scenario.

You have a family of 3 people and 2 dogs. There's been a car accident involving all of the above mentioned plus a friend. You're the only conscious and relatively unhurt one There's a fire starting in the engines and you have just enough time to get three lives out of the car before it blows up, what would you do?

The answer is obvious for me...the family would be the first out right?

We just can't help it....it is natural instinct. Everyone around you has a particular level of importance no matter how you look at it.

2006-10-03 00:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by walter o 1 · 0 1

In my case I would have to answer that a childs life is worth more than my own because they are just starting out where I have already had time to do something. So if given the choice of saving my own skin or a childs life, even if that child is not my own, I would have to save the child. As far as others beyond that, I can not answer otheer than different views, beleifs and opinions. Why is a 70 year old politiciton more important to get a heart than a 6 year old girl to a doctor? I have no idea. He's lived his life, it is time to give her a chance. Ok so she may be poor or homeless, but she can over some that if given the chance. People lack understanding and compassion in this type of arena. They focus more on the powerful then the powerless.

2006-09-27 15:31:20 · answer #3 · answered by mother_of_bonehead 3 · 0 0

The truth is because humans have a basic instinct of valuing their own lives because that is the basic possession all humans have and basis of self-awareness and individuality. That in turn automatically gives a certain value to all the other people's lives in comparison which is human nature. Humans all act in what they think is in their best interest and increasing their own lives values. Humans will value any life that makes their own worth more or better, while the ones that do not add value are seen as less of an interest. People may say they can act selflessly, but even while acting selflessly they are acting in interest of making their sacrifice worth something or their lives not meaningless. That is the basis of human nature and nothing more.

2006-09-29 07:31:29 · answer #4 · answered by The One Truth 4 · 0 0

Just like what some may have already suggested, being humans, people do tend to judge each other, classfying them, and categorizing them. Therefore, there are those who's lives, in this case, are worth more than others.

It's not true overall, ofcourse, because if you take a rich person and strip them of all their belongings and authority, they'd be no better than that beggar living in the street looking forward to find food in the trash to survive.

We're all humans, and most of the humance race need to realize that. Especially nowadays, where ignorance is still a big problem.

2006-09-27 09:16:13 · answer #5 · answered by NereidoftheBlue 2 · 1 0

It's animal nature to have a system of ruling, take example the wolf. The strongest wolf of the pact and the most cunning is the Alpha, the leader of their pact. You've got a beta and you have an omega, the omega is the scum of the group and are treated poorly.

Humans are the same way, the more powerful ones are placed further up the social system, I doubt there's anything that can change that. People will always place themselves higher or lower then other people, it's part of life.

2006-09-27 07:45:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Humans are political beings. Without our views of important rather than unimportant, we'd be in chaos. Look at primates. Lions. All other animals in the Animal kingdom as though humans. They all take upon some form of leadership icon to guide them. If that importance and value was not there, they'd be lost as a group, and much conflict would occur. Human relations, as though romantic or political, always take upon the ideals of value through money, status, and power, each one being a step closer to one of the others. Women like you more for it, and Society likes you more the more of any of the three you have. It wouldn't be wrong to say that societally, those three things are the meaning of life. On a deeper level, once those three things have occurred one will search out deeper meanings, but for the most part, those things are prerequisites.

2006-09-27 05:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by Answerer 7 · 1 0

Hello,

i also live in Devon too.south west Devon.I think it is wrong for us as human beings to assume the worth and quality of people,s lifes.Take for exmaple peolple who are rich,and someone who works very hard but recives a lower wage..does the richer person live a happier life because she or he has lots of money..i think not at times.Peoples "worth "so to speak comes from within themselfs..if we have confidence we have self worth,and are able to face lifes trials and tribulations with a positive mind.

Devon has a low wage problem,but money cannot buy or equal a lovley walk on the Moors,the sound swwet music of nature.

2006-10-02 07:37:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There are those who would consider someone else's life less worthy than their own.

I am trying to contemplate why that might be. All I can think of is that perhaps it is because ways other than our own threaten us. They threaten our world, our safety, our existence, our reality, our hopes, our dreams, our faith, we would rather that our world was not "rocked" so to speak, or thrown off balance but this new development, this attrocity, this threat, this danger, whatever it may be...and we may feel we thwarted a danger and think, better that their life is taken than mine....better that it happened to them and not us.

With this hatred of the middle east etc. it's the threat that creates the hate. If you could remove the threat of danger, people wouldn't really care what religion you practiced? Why should they? What creates the hate is the threat to their peace of mind.

So we think, who cares if the whole lot of them get blown off the face of the earth. This is wrong, because people for the most part are all the same. If we all stood naken in this world, we would see how similar we all are wouldn't we. No religion, no posessions...just like John Lennon said....Imagine!!! :~)

2006-09-27 16:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is segregation and humans have a tendency to discriminate between humans. The most observed part of this attitude is the consideration of life, since it immediately terrorise the likes on the lower echelon and therefore keep the other party up on the scale. The use of this will never end but will vary from one place or race to another and this variation depends on who is looking at it from which angle. It is a superiority complex that cannot be taken from people since everybody thinks he is better and therefore deserves more than his peers, and of course this has an immediate response on life. If you look deep in religion this was annuled by the word of god every time and everywhere, but who listens to that. This also gives you you an insight on the level of spirituality people adopt nowadays.

2006-10-03 01:47:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The people that tend to touch the most number of lives are usually deemed to be worth more, but that does not mean that those that we know are not worth just as much as those that we do not know. People that do positive things, actors and actresses, and even politicians fall into this category. Others that may have held this distinction may be "taken off the list" over time, but this does not necessarily diminish their worth. People like seeing things, the usual way means their seeing what someone else has done for them today. Revisionist history isn't always correct.

2006-09-27 14:27:25 · answer #11 · answered by Not a Superhuman body builder 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers