I could not possibly choose.
I guess what I mean to say is that it is wrong to determine a person's value
as a human being solely by what their contribution to society is, and I know I opened that door earlier when I used just those words "contribution to society."
Bear with me, because I am still working out how to express this. I may step over myself and seem to be contradictory, but I am still trying to formulate my thoughts. Plus, I am torn on it.
I dislike the idea that just because someone has more influence or money or... some other quality, then that must automatically translate as that person having more worth, more value, more importance or just being
better. Importance and value are relative. Now, the death of the President would affect us all in some way, but that does not mean that his death is more important to me or that HE has more value to me. My kids may not have any "value" to anyone else in the world, but their loss would be the worst possible thing for me. It would have little impact on the lives of random people on the internet, but it does not make it any less important. My kids are far more important than any sitting President.
I am torn about whether or not it is the right thing to do to say that some people are worthless in general. It seems like such a final judgment to be pronouncing, and I don't think that any of us are in a position to make such wide-sweeping judgments. Someone may be worthless to me, but that does not mean that he/she is not important to someone else. I think that very few people are past the point of redemption. Even the most self-absorbed ******* or narcissistic ***** can change if he or she has the proper motivation from within. True sociopaths and people with extreme affective disorders are a different story since they may lack the ability to care about the effect of their actions which limits the desire to change.
Yeah, I don't know. I am still thinking about it. If I am going to continue to wax philosophical, I'm going to need a lot more coffee.
