No no 2 people are inherently equal

You have not refuted Hume.

You cannot just state a claim

Okay, preferrable or not preferrable. You would prefer to have the man who has a biology degree making kedication rather than a sociologist. They are not equal in that regard, but both have worth as human beings.

Intelligence caps, behaviour inclinations, physical charactoristics, ect.

Preference is only relative to the individual. There is no inherent, objective morality in nature.

Only way for 2 humans to naturally equal is for us to be cyborgs built exactly the same

You have not refuted Hume.

His basis is that 2 people are born exactly the same.

Genetics alone refutes hume

I could be a realist and argue that humans are amongst the cheapest resources at our disposal.

plus, what's the difference between a coop and a corporation? companies are in direct competition with one another, so they have to specialise their employees to make sure they are the best they could be at their job to ensure their company succeeds. you wouldn't want a burger flipper to do your accounting, which is why there is a division of labour. if you don't have the most efficient process, then you will end up with 100$ sandwiches and water will become scarce as you don't have enough competent people doing their jobs. without growth, humans WILL regress, unless it is the number of people that you have to start with... we will find out what happens in that case when we hit the growth limit in a few decades of 9 billion people.

Nature is objective in this as survival at its base is genetic.

How can you say that worth is not relative to individual preference?

You really need to read about Hume, he is an enlightenment philosopher.

https://aeon.co/essays/hume-is-the-amiable-modest-generous-philosopher-we-need-today?fbclid=IwAR1WMeL6Yg_9CAhQNZXrkj-9USic8urVgJfEK7m7wGZCWlMV63bzk2DVCPo

Worth in survival is not individual preference

If I need a service, I only want the best person providing that service.

I would recommend reading "an enquiry concerning human understanding" by Hume.

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki

A person born with the evolutionary instinct that fire is bad. Naturally has more worth in nature than one born without

In nature worth is measured by survivability

Goblin, you're not refuting my arguments, you're just re-stating your point in different ways.

You need to address what I said.

I just did

What you said does not make much sense, if he did not address it.

"How can you say that worth is not relative to individual preference?"

It isnt individual preference in nature when measured by survivability

What do you mean exactly?

Are all people equal, based on an ideal?

I stated it in different ways when you didnt understand it

"Philosophers" are often wrong in some nuonces. Hence why philosophy isnt a sciencr

Philosophy created science, it is very valuable to know philosophy.

Philosophy was a handy way to take science and adapt it to every day.

But you should never take it as unabridged fact

No, it was a way to explore ideas.

Nobody does

Mittens does

To elaborate further. One cannot separate an is from an ought. For one to say someone has "worth", this claim is an ought claim. It is one which is relative to emotional preference. Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Objective means "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." If one is to say they find this or that trait preferable, then they are making a subjective claim, one which is according to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. That would make it an "ought" claim, because something someone feels ought to be, cannot be what something "is". What something is, would be objective, which means not influenced by personal opinion. So, to say someone has worth, that would be an ought claim, because you're making a claim about preference.

Marxists do

https://i2.wp.com/www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/is-ought.jpg?fit=400%2C400&ssl=1

Philosophy is not factual, ever.