> You've defined greatness in terms of accomplishments and creations. The author was defining it in terms of kindness. > ... how can you call yourself a better

> You've defined greatness in terms of accomplishments and creations. The author was defining it in terms of kindness. > ... how can you call yourself a better person because you have a higher IQ or wrought more complicated works? I easily could, by defining greatness in terms of accomplishments and creations. (Not saying that I do that, but I could.) It all depends on your values. I think there's a much deeper question here, which addresses the possibility of a total ordering of everything 'valuable'. Is life of an individual elephant valuable? Undoubtedly. However I think most people, in some twisted hypothetical scenario, would choose to protect the life of an individual human over the life of an individual elephant. Elephant communities are undoubtedly valuable. So are human communities. This question, of which one is 'more valuable', is for some reason, significantly more personal and subjective than the last question. Once you add objects or concepts into it then it gets even more subjective: a child's doodle is certainly not more valuable than the life of an elephant, but what about the entirety of the Sistine Chapel? What about the US Constitution? That's hairy. I think much of the discussion in this thread is between people who don't think life can ever have a total ordering with regards to 'value' and people who think it does, and that the total ordering is quite clear. I won't give an explicit opinion because I don't think I can, and also because we're getting off-topic, but feel free to note that I did support conservationism in my original comment.