NationStates

Most actions and possessions are measured by cost, whether it is work, money or usefulness. We as a species as accustomed to sorting everything by the value of practicality, entertainment, and such standards. We can make proportionalities for theft and destruction of property. Murder is another category altogether.

While we love this system for being so predictable and simple, it can't explain everything. In this case, what is the price of losing a soul? The consciousness rather than the body is usually presumed to be the part that makes us human. But the soul can't do work, be observed, or even be proved to exist without a host. It cannot be sold, bought, or collected.

Our physical being cannot be weighed either. The purpose is not consumption, so it cannot be placed by nutrition or quality.
Labor is calculated by wages. Wages aren't certain or in a constant relationship with work. And it is impossible to establish what the dead person would have done in work if they had met a different fate.
Most other perspectives of human worth are too objective and not logically meaningful. A life for a life doesn't apply properly to intricate determinations of worth. And if the killer took several lives, it may not be possible to even the conditions accordingly.

With no answer in sight, what determines the value? What punishment or reimbursement is morally mandated for the party at fault? Should humanity cease to seek an equal exhange?

In my opinion, it is a hard topic to answer concisely and definitively. I believe retribution should happen to an extent, although actions against the accused are sometimes unfair.

I'd say the material value of a life is how productive or useful one is for society. If, say a CEO killed a beggar, materially the CEO's life is worth more. But morally, the value of a life is priceless.

The Emerald Legion wrote:About 200 shillings apparently.

Why would you use weregild when the price of a human life is an integral part of how modern societies work?

Every minute you save on your commute is very literally priced in human lives. And in some countries it's not even in a sense of "we want it to be zero and we're okay with this figure". Some countries do not target 0 deaths.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:what is the price of losing a soul?

Zero, souls don't exist.

Should humanity cease to seek an equal exchange?

Yes.

I think the moderation policy most sufficiently sums up the answer to the questions posed herein:

Separate cases are considered separately.

I'm against the whole eye-for-an-eye thing, but personally my view is that human life is infinitely valuable.

VSLt = VSL0[(1 + gp)t]ε

Value of life is priceless. We should be grateful for it, because apparently an unconscious mind of us won the race for us.

The Emerald Legion wrote:About 200 shillings apparently.

Imagine not adding heavy interest to increase debts and intentionally make it harder to pay off.

Destriustan wrote:I'd say the material value of a life is how productive or useful one is for society. If, say a CEO killed a beggar, materially the CEO's life is worth more. But morally, the value of a life is priceless.

Nothing is priceless save for the worthless and exceptionally odd. Money is sort of like velocity, it has a value in multiple directions that has a number and goes closer to surplus or debt.
No doubt, a person has value, but potential value is another aspect for consideration. The CEO could be in the red and the beggar could have a job soon. Their careers are different, but in a certain point of view, both are helpful and harmful to society while the method of deciding is fairly abstract.

Forsher wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:About 200 shillings apparently.

Why would you use weregild when the price of a human life is an integral part of how modern societies work?

Every minute you save on your commute is very literally priced in human lives. And in some countries it's not even in a sense of "we want it to be zero and we're okay with this figure". Some countries do not target 0 deaths.

This is an inexact and blunt, very materialistic view. Indeed, the USAF could avoid less deaths and make that cheaper, although experience and public image along with appreciation of survival causes behavior which contrasts with militaries like China's. Life is usually regarded more preciously in well to do countries. These countries are also safer and more enjoyable places to live in. Guesswork does not top improvement forever. Eventually, morality surpasses profit in at least a few areas.

Risottia wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:what is the price of losing a soul?

Zero, souls don't exist.

Should humanity cease to seek an equal exchange?

Yes.

Why? The feeling is there and advantages to letting murderers without punishment aren't many.

Godular wrote:I think the moderation policy most sufficiently sums up the answer to the questions posed herein:

Separate cases are considered separately.

The problem is, that's not a good answer by any standards, only the simple one. It's an "I don't know" without admitting that you don't know. Not everyone can settle for such an inconclusive result. They must find meaning in all reality contains, for a half assed answer can be more frustrating than none at all. Some believe that questioning beliefs never considered or challenged leaves you better informed, albeit lost at first. "Why?" and "What is?" are the greatest fundamental empty ponderings; to have an opinion that is not complete is the most unsatisfactory course to befall one that must question. To know not but have the interest is worse than not to notice. The latter still leaves the individual none the wiser.

To seek the answer, to discover the right question, is the insatiable hunger of the mind. Arbitrary rulings are convenient, not final or correct.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm against the whole eye-for-an-eye thing, but personally my view is that human life is infinitely valuable.

What makes it infinite? Why not a set that we can comprehend?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm against the whole eye-for-an-eye thing, but personally my view is that human life is infinitely valuable.

What makes it infinite? Why not a set that we can comprehend?

What would you accept in exchange for your life?

Accidentally, Diya (blood money), on purpose, death, for a human life is of infinite value and therefore only a human life can requite it.

"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."