But different people are not worth more. Murdering a homeless street person carries the same penalty as murdering the mayor.
What is law is not what should be law. What is legislated is not necessarily what is moral.
Beyond that, though in terms of murder, this is the case, if someone with an 80 IQ and no gift in art were to seek a state grant for fine arts, he should be denied, whereas someone with a 140 IQ and great artistic talent, should be given that grant.
And this because these two people are not worth the same.
Then you would have no objection if you were the victim of an accident and someone decided your worth was zero and refused you medical treatment?
Your reasoning is so terribly flawed, to the point where it is next to impossible to communicate with you on this matter.
Nevertheless, out of morbid curiousity toward the conversation, I will attempt to explain.
Just because people’s lives are worth different amounts, does not mean that anyone’s life is “worth zero”. It does not follow. It cannot follow. Value, if it could be calculated, would be in ratios. So if my life were worth zero, by ratio, everyone’s would be (2 times 0 is 0).
Rather, if I were dying, and the president were, and the president had my blood type, it would be best to kill me, take my blood, and give it to the president. I would have no qualms with this.
Now, that’s not a flip statement – think about it a moment. If things are as you describe, the decision about worth must be made by someone else.
Of course, and always. That is why we should want competant leadership.
You have no (name removed by moderator)ut into the valuation of your life. And no appeal.
There is always appeal. I just may not be listened to.
In the grand scheme of things, it would matter little. People die every day, and I will die eventually anyway. If someone saw that my life should be expended for the sake of another, depending on the other, I would agree or disagree. But even if I disagree, if a mistake is made, hey. It’s just one life.
