Features
Life, happiness, and the value of existence
The criteria for assessing life as the most valuable asset vary largely across cultural contexts. Culture encompasses religions, traditions, rituals, beliefs, languages, the geopolitical environments, and even economic systems. In some cultures, individual life is considered secondary to broader, collective purposes. History has shown numerous instances where individuals have willingly sacrificed their lives for patriotism, even when the underlying motives remain ambiguous. Examples include suicide bombers and the practice of hara-kiri (Seppuku, also called hara-kiri, is a form of Japanese ritualistic suicide by disembowelment. It was originally reserved for samurai in their code of honour, but was also practised by other Japanese people during the Shōwa era to restore honour for themselves or for their families), and it is widely known that Japanese individuals who chose to end their lives by jumping onto enemy ships during World War II.
For others, life takes a backseat to faith, with the expectation of a more blissful existence in the afterlife. Some prioritize their partners’ well-being over their own due to extraordinary intimacy and love. These diverse perspectives highlight the complexity of valuing life, demonstrating that its perceived worth is deeply influenced by cultural, ideological, and emotional factors.
Naturally, for those in the medical profession, life itself is considered the most valuable asset.
The Philosophical Debate on Life’s Value
Therefore, the question of what the most valuable thing in life is deeply philosophical and varies based on individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds, and personal beliefs. Some philosophers, such as Thomas Nagel and Jean-Paul Sartre, argue that life itself is the most valuable asset, as without life, no other value or experience would be possible. This perspective aligns with existentialist thought, as Sartre pointed out that, where existence precedes essence, making life a fundamental prerequisite for any subjective or objective valuation. From a biological standpoint, survival and reproduction are fundamental evolutionary imperatives, reinforcing the intrinsic value of life.
However, another viewpoint suggests that time is equally, if not more, valuable. Time is finite and irreversible, making it the ultimate constraint on human existence. Time dictates the opportunities available for individuals to act, grow, and achieve meaning in life. Human beings construct meaning in response to the awareness of mortality, making the passage of time a defining element in determining value. In economic and philosophical discussions, time scarcity enhances its significance and wasting time equates to wasting life itself.
Cultural Determinants of Value
The criteria used to assess the value of life are largely dependent on cultural contexts, encompassing religion, traditions, language, geopolitical environments, and economic systems. Different cultures place varying degrees of emphasis on individualism and collectivism, significantly influencing the perceived value of life.
In highly individualistic societies, such as those in the Western world, life is regarded as an autonomous and personal entity, making personal well-being and longevity central concerns. In contrast, collectivist cultures, such as those in East Asia, often perceive life as part of a greater social or national identity, sometimes leading individuals to prioritize the collective over personal survival. This is evident in instances where individuals willingly sacrifice their lives for patriotism, such as Japanese kamikaze pilots during World War II and the historical practice of hara-kiri, which reflects a cultural valuation of honour over life itself.
The Paradox of Sacrificing Life
While life is commonly considered the most valuable possession, history and psychology demonstrate numerous cases where individuals willingly sacrifice their lives for a perceived greater cause. Religious and ideological convictions often shape these decisions. For example, the phenomenon of suicide bombers reflects the belief that religious or ideological goals transcend individual existence. Similarly, in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, the concept of an afterlife leads believers to view earthly life as transient and secondary to an eternal spiritual existence. Martyrdom in Christianity and jihad in Islam illustrate instances where individuals regard spiritual fulfillment or divine reward as more valuable than earthly life. Hindu and certain Buddhist beliefs conceptualize life as a transient stage in a cycle of rebirth, diminishing attachment to one’s current existence.
Love and the Willingness to Sacrifice Life
Extraordinary intimacy and love can also lead individuals to value another person’s life over their own. Psychological studies suggest that deep emotional bonds, such as those found in romantic relationships or parental care, can override self-preservation instincts. The concept of self-sacrificial love is widely explored in literature, such as in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, where love leads to the ultimate sacrifice. Similarly, cases of altruistic acts, such as firefighters risking their lives to save others, highlight scenarios where life is placed secondary to love, duty, or compassion.
Happiness vs. Life Itself as the Most Valuable Thing
The debate over what is most valuable in life often centres around two key perspectives: whether life itself is the ultimate value or whether happiness is the highest priority. While life is the foundation upon which all experiences—including happiness—are built, happiness is often seen as the ultimate goal that gives life meaning. A critical comparison of these perspectives involves examining their philosophical, cultural, and practical implications.
Life as the Most Valuable Thing
Biologists, like Richard Dawkins, highlight survival as the primary evolutionary imperative, suggesting that the drive to preserve life is deeply ingrained in human nature. From a cultural perspective, many traditions and religious beliefs uphold life as sacred. For example, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism emphasize the sanctity of life, sometimes even placing it above individual desires, including happiness. Additionally, in medical and ethical discussions, preserving life is often prioritized, even if it does not necessarily lead to happiness (e.g., life-support cases where patients may not have quality of life).
However, valuing life above all else can present contradictions. If mere existence is the ultimate value, does this mean that all suffering must be endured simply because one is alive? This perspective does not account for individuals who may find life unbearable due to terminal illness, severe suffering, or psychological distress, raising ethical questions about euthanasia and the right to die.
Happiness as the Most Valuable Thing
An alternative view suggests that happiness, rather than life itself, is the highest value. Thinkers like Aristotle (384–322 BCE) argued that eudaimonia—often translated as flourishing or deep happiness—is the ultimate goal of human existence. Similarly, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill proposed that maximizing happiness (or pleasure) is the guiding principle for ethical decision-making.
Quality of Life or Just Life
In this perspective, the value of life is determined by its quality rather than its mere existence. A life filled with suffering and devoid of happiness may not be seen as inherently valuable. This is reflected in contemporary discussions on well-being, where psychological research suggests that happiness—measured by emotional well-being and life satisfaction—is a key indicator of a meaningful life.
However, prioritizing happiness over life itself can also present dilemmas. Happiness is subjective and often fleeting, and what brings joy to one person may not apply universally. Moreover, an exclusive focus on happiness may lead to hedonism or short-term gratification at the expense of long-term well-being. If happiness is the ultimate goal, would it justify actions such as drug-induced euphoria or avoiding responsibilities that may bring long-term fulfillment but short-term discomfort?
Critical Comparison and Conclusion
Both perspectives offer compelling arguments, but they also have limitations. Life is a prerequisite for all experiences, including happiness, but mere survival without fulfillment may not be meaningful. Conversely, happiness is often seen as the purpose of life, but prioritizing it above existence itself can lead to ethical and philosophical challenges.
The valuation of life is not absolute but contingent on cultural, religious, and personal beliefs. While life itself is inherently valuable as a prerequisite for all experiences, various cultural and ideological frameworks may lead individuals to prioritize values other than their own existence. Whether driven by nationalism, faith, or love, the perception of life’s worth remains complex and multifaceted, varying across individuals and societies. The willingness to sacrifice life for ideological, religious, or emotional reasons suggests that the definition of value is fluid and context-dependent. Therefore, what is deemed most valuable is not an absolute truth but a product of the cultural and personal lenses through which individuals perceive their existence.
A balanced view might integrate both perspectives—recognizing that life is inherently valuable while also emphasizing the importance of living a fulfilling and meaningful existence. Instead of treating them as mutually exclusive, a nuanced approach would seek to enhance the quality of life so that it is both sustained and enriched with happiness.