You put it very well. Nothing I could add to that.
2006-12-11 02:24:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by robert m 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would have to say agree with the question stated;
"The measure of [a] life is not it's duration, but it's donation."
You could live to be 100 years old but if you contribute absolutely nothing to society, how much really was your life worth?
Look at Tupac Shakur.
He only lived to be 25 years old-- but look at how much he accomplished in such a short time.
The same can be said for Bruce Lee and many others.
Of note; quality is subjective and what one person would consider 'good', another person might consider it bad.
Morality and the measure of it is totally subjective.
Morality exists only in the eyes of the beholder, in my opinion.
2006-12-11 10:28:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Markie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
you measure a life not by its duration of course, but not solely by it's 'donation' either. it is a combination of things: the quality of that life, the happiness, the love. It's not measured only by how much you give, but also by what is given to you (not possessions) and what you take from it. what those things teach you about life. i guess it depends on the person who's life is in question... and who's doing the measuring
2006-12-11 10:28:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by theburlaces 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is a mighty good statement in itself...what is the point in living 100 years if you didn't contribute something positive to this world and leave it a better place than you found it? I'd rather live a short time and make a big impact than live long and do nothing....
2006-12-11 10:30:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by beetlejuice49423 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe, but I think it would be near impossible to make an accurate judgement about how worthwhile a particular life has been. Life is too complex.
2006-12-11 18:05:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ace Librarian 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Life is not measured by the amount of breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away.
2006-12-11 10:48:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋