The reason nobody can agree on the 'value of life' is because the value changes per context. Life has no intrinsic value of its own except to the person who cur

The reason nobody can agree on the 'value of life' is because the value changes per context. Life has no intrinsic value of its own except to the person who currently owns it. When anyone says 'all life has value' they are talking spiritually, or religiously, and that is something that is just feel good hippy speak to make themselves look and feel better. To truly speak of lifes value you have to break it down into contexts and agree that these contexts are necessary to be used in the comparisons: Economic, political, civic, leadership, educational, breeding value, looks, etc. Once a set of contexts are agreed upon you have to weigh them based on a common base, like say Economic, take that as a 1.0. Someone might say that 'looks' is a 0.6 based on economic value, where as leadership or engineering may be 1.2. Once these weights are set, apply values to the contexts, weigh them together to get an total value of the person's life. Then you can accurately judge their life value vs another. You could improve upon this by having negatives (murderous villains) that could affect total value, etc.