Value Of Life In Amanda Ripley's Soliloquy '

In this play “Hamlet” written by William Shakespeare, there are many soliloquies that are said by Hamlet to depict various meanings of his thoughts, feelings, and actions that are inside of him. More specifically the soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1, in lines 57-91 starts off with the famous saying known as “To be, or not to be”. Throughout this soliloquy, Hamlet is asking himself the question of whether it is better to live or not to live. In life, we are faced with many situations where we feel the need to give up our life and not face the problems. Only by facing all the troubles, will a person become stronger and more courageous to handle anything in life. By believing in one’s self, can man have the courage to follow what they think is right. Killing yourself or giving up is never a solution in life. This soliloquy reveals Hamlet’s fearful personality by showing that his decision-making process is slow and that he fears risks or uncertainty. These character traits are depicted thoroughly by Hamlet throughout the play.

When your back is against a wall and it seems that all hope is lost, do not give up. Because if you choose suicide, you will never live to see it get worse, however, you also pass up the chance to see life get better. Suicide is an important, recurring theme in William Shakespeare's, Hamlet, and it is a topic that Hamlet contemplates quite often throughout the play. Hamlet often goes back and forth between to be or not to be, but continues to believe that people although capable of suicide, choose to live. Hamlet is adamant that the unknown, the inconclusiveness of nobility, along with the sin attached to suicide is what ultimately keeps people from taking their own lives.

Determining the amount of damages that should be given to the different types of people is the central issue of the article. “I had always accepted that no two lives were worth the same in financial terms. But now I found the law in conflict with my growing belief in the equality of all life” (Ripley 3). This means that the best solution from a moral standpoint should be that all victims receive the same recompense. Feinberg’s job, however, was to administer the congressional directive to ensure victims’ families “maintain something resembling their current standard of living.” (Feinberg 11). His work attempted to uncover the true value of life by diverting attention away from a lump sum of money for each victim, and instead focusing on the victims’ lives, ensuring that each family gets what they deserve. Using complex calculations of compensating for potential unearned wages and then deducting other financial assets meant that some families actually qualified for no money at all. Did that meant that their loved one’s life was worthless? The government’s virtuous intentions, while seen by many as flawed, were not always derided. Victim David Gordenstein, who lost his wife on 9/11 reflects, “I am proud of what my country tried to do. I think the intention is noble” (Ripley

For many, the value of life is the ideology that all are created equal, while others don’t see a value to human life at all, and some assign value to human life by the beauty within in. The United States Federal Government unsuccessfully attempted to put a monetary value to human life after the fatal attacks on September 11th, 2001.

When it comes to the topic of the value of life. Most of us will readily agree that there is no amount of money that can equal the loss for a loved one.. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of whether or not the government has the right to assign a dollar value on the human life. While some are convinced that a dollar value is enough other believe that there is no dollar value that can compensate for their lost loved one. Society should base the value of life based on that person's future income in expected life to live.

"To be or not to be, that is the question". This is probably one of the most famous soliloquies. You could say that Hamlet sounds like a broken record with the whole suicide thing. However, he just might be moving on here. After all, instead of obsessing about whether or not to kill himself, he is exploring the reason why people in general don't commit suicide. When it comes down to it, he is talking about you, us and everyone else out there. Life is worth because we are experience every single moment. And there are some special moment that define who we are.

In this case, I consider the utilitarian versus the sacred view of life. There is a social role of people based on their profession, such as engineers, physicians, members of the clergy, etc. This brings up the question of our importance. Are we important only as long as we are making a contribution to society, or is there something valuable about our humanity? What is moral maximizes utility, and with important individuals who contribute and benefit society choosing to end their lives is not right. Humans have a duty to contribute to the wellbeing society for their lives. We live in a social contract with one another and our skills, our utility should be used to the fullest

If people are dying each day and others are left to mourn the loss, why is it such a controversial issue? This long held debate is due to the view they have

strates that life is very valuable you only have one.Those who disagree think still its want that person wants do and so be is if they wanna risk there life them.This argument is

Hamlet was so obsessed with his lack of action and the worthlessness of life that he contemplates suicide asking, "For who could bear the whips and scorns of time" ( III. i. 69-70). He believes he would be foolish to suffer through his life when he will simply be

The right to die has been brought to the media and public spotlight through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Cruzan v. Missouri, and Vacco v. Quill. This issue has been the topic of heated debate for years in the religious, scientific, and political community. This is because this topic ties into many communities and effects a large amount of people.

It has been fashionable for some time now and in many aspects of American public life for people to demand what they want or need as a matter of rights, hence the claim of the “right to die”.

Everyone has been led to believe that all lives are equal, and they are however, in terms of monetary value, lives are not equal. Aside the ethics about assigning value to the live it is still done. The justice system tries to resolve this loss by using unjust means. Life should not be given a value in any sort of currency, it is is not right as there is no way to put a price on something as priceless as life. Even if the life of a person is affected by an illness, their worth should not be decreased. All lives are equal, some people need more help than others and it should be given if and when deserve such help. The value of life has been contemplated throughout history, such as Shakespeare's (1599) play, hamlet; in which Hamlet’s

Hamlets contemplation of ending his life shows an inward conflict within himself. In his first soliloquy, he debates whether he should commit suicide. "To be, or not to be- / that is the question: / whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them" (3.1. lines 64-68 Shakespeare). He questions why he should live with all of this chaos but overcomes this internal conflict because he acknowledges that in his religion suicide is a sin. “O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, / Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, / or that the everlasting had not fixed His canon 'gainst (self-slaughter). O God! God!” (1.2. lines 133-136 Shakespeare). This soliloquy signifies the reality of Hamlet s internal conflict and also shows the reality of his external conflict with the society he is surrounded by. This declamation establishes

Though our society has adapted and developed, inequality remains prevalent all around the world. Our society assigns value to human live based on ethnicity and gender. Currently around the world there are over 30 million slaves in which 60,000 are in the United States. Even though slavery has been abolished in nearly every country many people still measure the value of individuals in cents and dollars. Should life be calculated in terms of money? How should we as a society assign value to a persons life? I personally believe that you can't assign a price to someones life and you shouldn’t It’s both politically and morally unjust.