You are mistaken.
One of the problems with logic is that is equally valid whether it is applied to valid or invalid assumptions.
Ah-hah, so you agree that my conclusion is logically valid. :-D
For example, your logic collapses if I decide that I "want" your car, and decide that the possibility of gain from harming you, outweighs the risk of my being harmed in return.
You are mistaken. The question is not "Do I want his car?", the question is "Would I dislike it if he stole my car?" A person might very well decide to steal a car because he wanted it and thought he could get away with it, but in doing so he would violate morality.
If I claim otherwise, on what rational basis could you counter it, especially given that, in terms of how they benefit the rest of us, some people really do seem to be more valuable than others?
You silly little pickle! Ahem, excuse me, got carried away to a Veggie Tales flashback.
I am constantly being told by Christians that humans can make no value judgements in the absence of an outside standard, which is commonly claimed to be God, yet when I agree with that in part you contradict me! Any value judgements we make without that standard are subjective. Your claim to be superior is contrary to Ghengis Khan's claim to be superior, which is contrary to random caveman's claim to be superior. Who is really superior? We have no rational basis for claiming any person is, any more than we can say one bacterium is better than another or this hydrogen molecule here is better than the one there.
especially given that, in terms of how they benefit the rest of us, some people really do seem to be more valuable than others?
This is again subjective. I might perceive my doctor as being more valuable than you because he can treat my asthma and that of many others, while you cannot (but then your kids would probably think you are more valuable than the doctor--who's to say who is right?) Perhaps this way of valuation might be useful in some contexts, like making a utilitarian decision about which to grab if a ravine suddenly opened beneath you two and I could only save one, but it tells me nothing when it comes to the question of who it is ok to poke in the eye.
Likewise you might think that an apple tree is "better" than the dogwood next to it because it produces apples while the dogwood just looks pretty. But that's a subjective judgement based on the fact that you like apples. In actuality, it's just a tree, it doesn't exist for your benefit (unless perhaps you are "better" than everyone else), and it is neither "better" nor "worse" than the dogwood.
A very sweet sentiment, which is unfortunately at odds with reality. There are a lot of thieves out there, and (as we see in the "looting shots" from any number of natural or man-made disasters) they're especially prevalent in situations where they're reasonably certain that they will not be caught or punished for their actions.
Again, you mistake what I wrote. I said I do not want others to steal from me, and others don't want to be stolen from. Are you telling me if I walked up to a looter and stole his stolen TV from me he wouldn't object? Of course not.
Please try to post something that actually addresses what I said.
No, not "mistaken." You're demanding that I accept your assumptions, and operate according to your premises. But I'm challenging them instead -- I'm suggesting that logic is insufficient here: your premises must also be valid.
In essence, you're basing the "morality" of stealing on a personal view of "what I want", extending your personal view to others, and drawing a global conclusion.
The problem is that it doesn't work. I have offered an opposing alternative, also based on "what I want," which also follows logically from a set of premises, and which leads to a conclusion that contradicts what you claim to be the "moral" approach to stealing.
In this case, the car thief may well violate your morality, but in so doing, he would satisfy his own morality.
The prickly problem is that you're claiming a superior morality -- but on what basis? Are your "wants" somehow better than his? Not according to you: "Neither I nor any other human is more inherently valuable than others." So your wants are not superior to his -- nor, by extension, is your want-based morality superior to his. So he can steal if he wants, and you can not steal, as suits your assessment of the situation. And thus we reach a situation where the same underlying moral basis, "what I want," leads to opposing views of "moral behavior." In other words, your morality has no rational meaning.
Oops.
yet when I agree with that in part you contradict me!
The problem is not in the "agreement," but in the irrationality of your position. The example above demonstrates the point. The key is not in the logic, but rather in the validity of your premises.
Please try to post something that actually addresses what I said.
I did. I slapped you across the face with the cold, wet fish of reality.