Most interesting "discussion" today dealing with whether or not an individuals "worth" has anything to do with their performance. To clarify the context the example used was that if an individual knows that eating a donut is bad and eats it anyway eating it has nothing to do with the individuals worth. I asked who assigned the "bad" to the eating of the donut and was answered that the individual eating the donut had assigned the "bad" to eating donuts. I pushed for a slightly different picture to dramatize the query; "If an individual holds that killing people is "bad" and kills someone anyway, does that affect their worth?" I was answered "No." The response follows the premise that people have "worth" regardless of their thoughts and actions and that "worth" is not diminished in any way by their thoughts or actions. I was told that my "dramatization", although inflammatory, still didn't change the fact that the "worth" of the individual was not mitigated by killing a person.

The opinion of the promoter of the above premise also ran to the only thing that could adversely affect the "worth" of the individual in the above circumstance would be if they "rationalized" eating the donut or killing someone. I think the whole position is magnificently flawed as the "worth" of an individual is mightily affected if not entirely dependent upon their thoughts and actions. What do you think?