It could be that the problem here is that your way of thinking is so far removed from mine that communication is extremely difficult. It may be that your mind has been so muddled by narcissistic relativism that you are having trouble understanding my reasoning. So, let me try one more time to present my position which is also the truth of the matter.
There is a qualitative difference between YOUR perspective on value, and the real objective value of a human being (by "objective" - I mean universal, essential, independent of human preference). My perspective is illustrated in the maxim "all men are created equal" - this is an objective self-evident truth. My neighbor has just as much objective worth as a human being as my wife, even though my wife is more valuable to me. An orphan with no one to love him has just as much value as a human being as a man with 1,000 friends. Human worth is qualitative not quantitative - get it? Yes, to you, your wife has more value, but you are biased by your love for your wife (understandable and quite normal). But, there is a difference between what I like and what is right and true. You have made them one and the same - this is a qualitative error on your part. There is a difference between your perspective and what is real. Perspectives are often wrong! Slave-holders may like to own slaves, but it is wrong regardless of their like or dis-like; similarly, all human beings are created equal whether or not you like this person more than that person. Again, objective equality is qualitative, not quantitative. Your focus on personal "perspectives" reminds me of the postmodernist self-refuting writings of Foucault (good for a door stop).
It was wrong to slaughter jews whether or not Hitler believed he was right. Do you dispute that statement? In real qualitative terms, all people are equally valuable - they are created equal - but you cann't measure their worth as you have suggested - you are trying to add a quantitative dimension to human worth and that only works form the personal perspective. The personal perspective is important, but this is separate and distinct from the objective qualitative perspective. Your attempt to place quantitative value on human life is akin to the mentality of a slave-trader. Slavery was wrong and for this reason, it was abolished in the West (funny it sill goes on in Sudan and other arab countries). It was on this principle of equality of all men that our nation was founded and has flourished. When Americans lose sight of this principle, tyranny is around the corner. People like you scare me for this reason.
These as well are great points. I am beginning to see your logic as well, though I don't agree with everything you say, it is very interesting.
I see that you believe that all life (human in this case) has objective value. I agree that human life is unique and, dare I sound cliche, precious. But their does exist subjective value as well. You say that those that think this way scare you because this is the thought process of fascists, slave-traders, and Stalin. The opposite can be expressed towards anybody who holds that life is perfectly objective. This leads down towards the path of pure socialism (not Stalinesque sociopathic-socialism). All are objectively worthy and therefore we should pool all resources for the betterment of all equal brothers? How can we ever support a war if the people we are fighting are just as important and valuable as we are? I don't think you are properly explaining your theories on the connection between subjective value of human life and moral relativism. I don't think you necessarily have to be a moral relativist if you value human life subjectively. I can value the life of a German less than an American, and a Pakistani less than a German (hypothetically, of course). I can value the life of my neighbor less than the life of my brother. Morality does not immediately go out the window at that point. That low line objective value (that I see and almost agree with you on) must also come into play, that we are all human beings under the same objective morality (Ahhh!) and must respect each other if everybody is playing by these objective rules... Once you break those rules, than I will treat you like the inferior dog that you are!!! Just kidding, I wanted to end with dramatic effect. Might be total drivel, but I'm on the fly here.
Good grief. Talk about egotistic.
What I'm driving at, in a round-about way, is that your claim that human beings have an objective value is not supportable by the evidence. You may believe it to be and you may gear your moral actions around this belief, but you're basically starting from an arbitrary First Principle. The rest of the universe does not put much value on human life. Acts of God claim hundreds of thousands of lives per year, so He obviously does not hold us in as high regard as you believe. Other organisms regularly kill human beings, so they obviously don't value human life. Human beings regularly slaughter each other over trivial matters, so they don't place a high value on people.
You value human life highly. I value human life highly. Neither of us likes to see people hurt or killed -- it strikes at the very core of our upbringing. However, as humans go we are the exception rather than the norm. Moslems shoot their women for showing a little ankle; Chinese soldiers threw themselves suicidally at their enemies; Russians regularly resorted to decimation to keep the peasants in line. There is no evidence for an objective value for human life.
You can claim an objective value for people, but you cannot prove it; the available evidence does not fit your theory.