Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A human life isn't intrinsically worth anything.
Every member of society, working through their animalistic survival instinct, gives value to every other life in order to have others give value to their life. It's why we have laws against violence. It's why each one of us is expected to do something if we see someone in immediate medical danger. It's why we vote for various types of welfare. Because when we pay that respect to other people, we expect the same for ourselves.
It's wrong. It's imagining value where there is none. It's a collective ego-stroke that will justify anything, no matter how morally wrong or fundamentally unsound.
Uh.... You're probably the only person I've seen argue that compassion is immoral.
The problem with your idea here is that the alternative is nihilism. For a good example of what that entails, observe much of the strife in Africa.
Regardless of your thoughts on the intrinsic value of life, society depends upon some sense of intrinsic worth to life, because without it.... society eventually collapses.
The same goes for what Galt was saying. You can't judge the worth of someone by their payroll. In practical terms, what someone makes in money determines their immediate, liquid worth, but their actual value to society is dependent upon their skills and the level of need of society for their skills.