I thought this would get more posts, it's one of the most interesting questions I've seen here in a while.

This is a question I've really grappled with.

I'd love to be able to simply say yes and leave it at that, but I tend to be the sort of person who picks at such things and attempts to place them within a political and social framework... realistically, I'm afraid I can't just leave it at that.

(Actually, the issue that gives me the most grief is gun control - my entire social {non economic} worldview is predicated on liberalism and free choice but I loathe the idea of the public having free access to guns. Due to the consequences, I really don't know how to reconcile this. As a result I constantly revisit the issue in my mind. I believe personal responsibility is the answer to most questions, but in this case I can't resolve things.)

I have been very lucky - from a young age, my family travelled and it became a habit for me as I grew up. Thus, I have lived in a variety of places.
In some instances, I spent extended periods in places that were very clearly impoverished.
I was gifted with an education and the ability to teach others skills that would assist them in gaining employment. Granted, by our standards the potential employment wasn't all that flash, but I know for a fact it assisted those people.

When I ask then, if my presence wasn't more valuable than one of the other villagers, am I being conceited? I really don't think I am. I'm simply being honest.

Education counts. It improves the worth of an individual in all the non-philosophical ways that matter in this competitive world.

I would say that all newborn babies are equal, for no other reason than we don't know their capabilities. It's rare, but a genius can be born from the poorest, least educated couples imaginable - in most cases however, nobody would ever know that this child had the potential to qualify for mensa membership.

People are born with equal value, but that value depreciates.

Maintaining and improving that value is another question entirely.

Some interesting responses.

Terms like equal value or human rights are not naturally given they are man-made concepts. Collectively we might determine that our lives are equally valuable and that there are some basic human rights to which we suscribe. There are very good reasons for doing this.

Different societies and cultures may differ on what constitutes rights or value. In some societies women are less valued in others those of contrary belief systems might be persecuted and less valued. The list is endless.

How would we define 'value'. Is someone more valuable because they contribute more to the group and thus the overall wellbeing or survival of the group? In more primitive times this may have been the case.

I believe we have to work from the premise that all lives have equal value even if we are not all born into 'equal' situations. Hopefully more democractic societies will seek to establish equal access to opportunity.

Contribution is an interesting concept too. How are we to assess the worth of someone's contribution? Is a rich man who creates employment for others any more worthy than a poorer man who grows his own food and provides for his family and village the best he can given the circumstances he has been born into?

I have a great problem with the concept. I would like to believe that all humans have equal worth.

However, if there were two babies one blind, deaf with a rudimentary brain and the other a healthy normal infant with no obvious defects and I were a person who could save the life of only one of them it would not be a difficult choice.

If I had the same sort of choice and one of the individuals was Barack Obama and the other was one of his relatives in Africa who might have an even greater intelligence but was an illiterate subsistence farmer it would also be an easy choice.

However, all four examples above should have equal rights to due process under the law.

I'd suggest that the issue is not so much about value, rather priority.

That which is closer to me or which I see as adding to what is important to me gets a higher priority from me regardless of it's 'value'.

Maybe that equates to the personal value of something or someone as opposed to the idea of an intrinsic value.

R0bert

yes, also the amount of compassion available. When I used to work for welfare there was a thing called compassion fatigue.

So I agree, preference and values radiates out from ones own priorities, and there isn't an endless supply.

Also I agree with most of the other points, mainly what people or groups give and take from other groups or our society.

If we have to be political about it, which we do, I'd think the fairest thing was to offer, as much as possible, an equal start for everyone. Their assets, handicaps, good and bad choices etc are theirs and who ever they inflict of share them with.