22nd February 2026
Several members of my extended family have passed away in recent weeks. The feeling of relentless disappearance has caused me to lightly mull the statistical significance. But beyond that, my mind has been pre-occupied reminiscing. Absorbed in moments of shared empathy and emotion with the just departed. In the surreality of their absence, poignancy attaches to surprising memories. But aside from the recollection, via the compressed capsule of my impressions, unbidden has arisen inspection of the legacy each has left behind; the indelible marks those beyond my generation will praise. It’s caused me to wonder how we should think about the value of a life lived.
What would a stranger peering in on my life and its achievements or lack of surmise. Would they perceive I’ve made the most of the life I have been given? Taken it and morphed it into a remembrance greater than the starting ingredients would have suggested? Would they advocate I still have the potential to stir and catalyse what has been swirling in and around me into something more substantial? Is that the right way to consider my value on this planet? I’m not sure. In my moribund moments I shake myself to stop being so grand. We are worker ants scurrying – arisen from the primordial sludge only to return to it on death; a tiny speck in the lifespan of this planet. Surely just living is value in itself?
As you would suspect, reams and multiple angles have been written on versions of this question of how to appraise or weigh up the value of one’s life. It has been considered via religious narrative, philosophical contemplation and hard eyed commercial perspectives. Putting aside the religious for this post, let’s consider the philosophical where there are a vast array of theories. Here is the briefest canter through a few, noting I’ve tried to simplify so I absolutely won’t do justice to these great thinkers:
– Confucius believed a valuable life is to live in harmony with the world around and improve the lot of society by caring through humaneness, moral growth and fulfilling duties towards family and society.
– Socrates pronounced his famous line ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ at his trial shortly before his death. Essentially unless you partook in self-reflection and critically examining your beliefs, actions and purpose, your life was meaningless. He also believed a good life was founded on virtuosity.
– Aristotle suggested every being works towards a purpose which is to find happiness, or Eudaimonia. This was only achieved by realising your full potential by living a consistently virtuous life, where the virtues were intellectual and moral. This is how worthiness would be assessed.
– Epicurus believed life should be pleasurable and was about being free from fear or pain by living simply, modestly and within your own means; not being burdened by unnecessary desires or anxiety.
– Nietzsche felt life in itself did not have meaning (Nihilism), and that it needed to be created by the individual. You shape your destiny and more than that you must embrace all aspects of life and overcome adversity. That’s what creates value. He did not believe suffering was a sign of a worthless life.
– Camus’s theory on the value of life was grounded in Absurdism. Suggesting that whilst we have a drive to find meaning in our existence, the universe is indifferent to us. The absurdity is in the conflict. But life still has value even if we cannot define meaning and so we should rebel; live in the present and with passion by gathering as many experiences as possible.
– Sartre also believed humans are not borne with a purpose, but unlike Camus and his rebellion he felt we are forced to be free and so we could create meaning by defining ourselves via our actions (Existentialism). He suggested value was about taking responsibility and being authentic which we could demonstrate through commitments to causes or projects.
In some respects this wide ranging postulating is unsettling. The dissecting of a life lived is mostly viewed through the lens of the seemingly nebulous. Offering no definitive basis as to which is the more correct approach. Regardless, I like the theory Camus propounds. It resonates with how I choose to exist – live for today and truly live. But at the margin, if I am honest, the ego in me also wants to make the world around me a slightly nicer place. And so I suppose I strive in both directions and hope in the final tally, amalgamated, it delivers credit.
Clearly the scholarly conjectures guide to many paths defining the value of a life before and after birth. This might lead you to think it is therefore impossible and inappropriate unless you follow a particular philosopher or certain religious teachings, to weigh one life against another or even consider life in absolute and determine it’s value. However through the commercial we have attempted to subvert the metaphysical and do just that.
The most well known appraisal of our value is via our life insurance policy in which we are treated as individuals with complex calculations generating our numerical deathly worth. But in governmental provision of services, the most common calculation for representing the value of a life is utilisation of the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) or in the UK, the Value of a Prevented Fatality (VPF).
The VSL or VPF aims to reflect the amount of money that a person or society is realistically willing to pay to save one human life with all lives valued the same. The reason we do this is for situations of trade offs. In particular attempting to balance safety against other aspects such as cost effectiveness and finite resources such as in the fields of health, transport and environmental policy. So for example, consider travelling on public transport. How do we balance spending to manage safety without compromising services through excessive processes and checks. Because the latter would be the best way to keep us completely safe and prevent death but is not a practical way to operate a service. Here in the UK healthcare system we also have something called a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) which values a year of a healthy life in order to determine which treatments to support in the NHS. Generally treatments that offer poor value for money (low QALY) are not offered.
I won’t go into the calculating of these metrics or life insurance otherwise this would be an even longer post, but suffice to say these metrics generate controversy too – both in the method of calculation and in what they represent. Few of us feel our life should be encapsulated by a number (though some would suggest their bank balance might be a good representation of their life’s value!)
There are plenty of other nuances to consider with this question. For example should we value the life remaining for an elderly or terminally ill person the same as for a young healthy individual. In this case where we deviate from absolute value of life we indicate that someone’s remaining years will be worthier? In gauging a life’s worth, how do we think about the eyes through which it is assessed, the imposition of personal values in that consideration? How do we weigh up a ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ character and the potential areas of grey? If we offer retrospective re-assessment of an individual – is that acceptable? And how should we determine the life lived of a loved one versus a stranger given the greater impact of the former on us the individual?
So, I am none the wiser. This meander has not caused me to stop and re-assess how I live and what I do – virtuous is not in my nature! Instead I am that scurrying worker ant. Whether life has meaning or not, I plan on carrying on as I always have and devil be dammed if on my death bed my Cost centres question the point of my being. Though obviously when they receive the numerical determination of the value of my life via my life insurance policy, I will for a short moment have left my mark and be considered to have lived a valuable life…..
Curiosity and the rascal 