I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would get done if this wasn't enforced - Murder is just economically bad, as is fraud, rape, abuse, battery, censorship and many other things - morals need not come into it - not enforcing these protections is more expensive - for more treatment in thinking like this see "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins).
See the problem with the terms "intrinsic worth" and "dignity" is that they are almost meaningless and very fuzzy. What do you mean exactly?
> “All lives have equal value”
Melinda Gates repeatedly emphasized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s deep belief that all lives have equal value and everyone should be given the same chance.
I've come to the exact same conclusion that she has with harder terms. We need to give people the same chance because if done so - we are all better off.
You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.
But I'm always careful with utilitarian theory - it's so easy to get wrong - if any one of your assumptions are wrong. That's why I try to make sure that the final result complies with other theories (empathy etc.).
Playing with value theories is like playing with fire.
You haven't come to the "exact same conclusion" that she has. You've come to a different conclusion that just appears to you to be the same because it has the potential for the same outcome.
How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but the outcome is the same, isn't it? If both theories produce equivalent actions, then the theories are equivalent, no?
Making judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one of a range of frameworks that can be applied.
Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct?
Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering.
See the problem with the terms "intrinsic worth" and "dignity" is that they are almost meaningless and very fuzzy. What do you mean exactly?
> “All lives have equal value”
Melinda Gates repeatedly emphasized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s deep belief that all lives have equal value and everyone should be given the same chance.
I've come to the exact same conclusion that she has with harder terms. We need to give people the same chance because if done so - we are all better off.