Is all human life equal in its worth? Are we all an equal part of this world, regarding contribution? What DO we have to contribute for us to look worthy in other people's eyes?
Or looking it it intrinsically (I think that's the right word), are some people just more competent at living? Not just regarding education, career and financial success, but personal and mental state?
This is not making much sense now, i guess I'm trying to figure it out myself, but I can give some examples.

Two hypothetical people, one called Lesa and one called Mandy.
Both of this girls are friends, went to school together and are from the same town. they are both raised by single parents.

After highschool, Mandy moves about 5hrs away to attend university and Lesa stays in the home city, and is also going to university.

Mandy has had near perfect grades, and is extremely academic. Lesa sometimes struggled through (most of the times her grades were average), but she got there, to university, as well.

However ...
Mandy is horrible at making friends, and more so at keeping them. She tends to scare people off or annoy the crap out of them. They consider her to be childish and immature, always fussing over anime and kid's stuff like collecting pokemon cards.
Mandy isn't at peace with herself. She's 22, single, complete virgin, considers herself unattractive, but what's more, mostly blames factors other than herself for her problems. She has no will to spend time on her own, finds hobbies tedious and is unmotivated most of the time.

Lesa, however, has learned to cope. Nothing is such a stress anymore, and things always end up working out. She has a group of close friends, a boyfriend, and is engrossed in her life because of her love for her hobbies, friends, and general existance of everything. Her academic work is still sloppy, but she has never failed and will get her degree with a decent score, perhaps complete another degree after it.

Are these two people equal in status in life? If they continue like this without making changes would you say Mandy, in essence, has failed at life (to put it bluntly)?
Mandy might get a better job and contribute more to society, but which is more important, that or personal comfort (ie, emotional intelligence)?

The whole concept of contributing to society is bogus. If everybody would strive to life a happy fulfilling life, and to simply allow others to do the same, more people would live happy, fulfilling lives, and everybody would be happier, by definition.
I don't believe it's possible to fail at life, because the very notion repulses me. I certainly think you're missing out on a lot if you sacrifice your own immediate happiness for grades, achievements, money or whatever - even when the end goal is future happiness. It's important to remember that happiness and contentedness are always immediate things. If you're unhappy because you're trying to make yourself happier later, likely as not you'll end up spending far more time unhappily trying than happily being - happy that is. Being unhappy for future happiness is a trap, a vicious cycle, a terrible thing to be in.

It depends on what kind of person you are. There are people who just do something because they love to do it, like working for instance, and this already makes them happy.

Others don't get happy by just working, but by being able to buy a huge plasma TV, and a PS3.

Others will find their raison d'être in helping others.

There are differences in the ways people are getting happy.

What makes a person happy may depend on where the person comes from, how the childhood was, what colour her first ball had or if it was raining the day she was born.

Everyone sees the world in a different way, and if you decide for yourself, that you didn't achieve what you wanted to, yes, maybe you failed in life. It's a persons own decision to decided whether they failed or not.

And personally I really doubt, just in trying to be happy yourself you'll allow others to be happy. This won't work.

This only seems improbable when we work on the basis that most for people, their personal 'happiness' comes at the expense of others. I guess this is what I refer to when I talk about the need for humanity to evolve before we really get anywhere. At this stage in history it's a bit utopian, but maybe one day (long after I'm dead by my estimation).

I think that most people will allow others to be happy. The problem is that it only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. That's why we have to have some kind of governmental restrictions, because otherwise a few greedy people would run roughshod over everyone else. And the truth is, we've come a long way. For the most part, we can do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't damage those around us. I'd like to see some things change, but it's better than it could be.

There is an old saying that goes something like ..

Some people work to live and others live to work.

As previous posters have said different things make different people happy. Some like the idea of a bohemian lifestyle while others measure their happiness based on how big their plasma tv is or whether the have the latest 'It' car.

We are all different and for me that's what makes life exciting. If we were all striving for the same goals then life would get pretty boring. Wheres the unexpected?

mxap, the notion of someone having failed in life may repulse you, but to deny it for that reason that's...well, denial.
A lot of the things in this world repulse me, but they're still happening.

I think you're missing the point there MissFortune. I don't think mxap is repulsed by anyone failing but more is repulsed by the notion of accepting failure as the result of your actions. It's all about perception and how you see the life you are leading. By being trapped in that cycle of judging your happiness by your material gains and judgement of what others see as the attainment of happiness, then you are doomed to a cycle of always trying to be something that you may never obtain.

Happiness exists in just being in the moment, devoid of all these perceptions. In this moment we are all equal, pure beings.

narayan, I'm glad you answered before me. You did a much better job than I'd have done.
Been reading any Alan Watts, perchance?

MRiGnS, mmccarthy, this may not be my place to judge, but I sincerely doubt buying a plasma TV and a PS3 has ever made any adult happy in a lasting way. I myself often wish I could buy all kinds of pretty things that I can't, but whenever I do buy something, I either feel bad later or only feel good for a short while. I'm not necessarily qualified to make this judgement, but I seem to get the impression that being very rich does not make anybody any more happy overall. It just gives them a different set of problems to worry about, from what I've seen.

Although this is true as far as it goes. Happiness is a matter of perception. If someone believes material things will make them happy then it does. The happiness may not last beyond the novelty of the new purchase but thats why they always need another new "thing" to strive for.

Being rich is of course no guarantee of happiness but then neither is being poor. The point I was making was not about achieving true happiness which is elusive to most people but rather what people perceive will make them happy.

No, I've never heard of him but his body of work throughout his lifetime looks very interesting.

I would recommend "The Wisdom of Insecurity". It's the only book of his I've read so far (along with a few lectures), and it deals very much in depth and in a most beautiful way with the issues we're discussing here. It also happens to be a very short book and extremely accessible to anyone who reads.

mccarthy: then we are in agreement.

Just two different ways of looking at the same issue. Coming at it from different angles is what makes life fun.

We are obviously not the same. And it would be a terrible coincidence if we were all were 'as competent in living' in any (relevant)measure, so i do not think we are.
Some of the discussion seems to be more about how to cope with our (in)competency in living.(I vote for discussing this ) There is no point in beating ones' self down for failing at things. Perhaps people should set smaller goals and find motivation in that. But that is all easily said.. I myself do find myself in a train of thought that drains my spirit(motivation) to my bones.(Well that is what it feels like at that point.)
I guess it is important to have internal as well as external motivation. The internal one does not rely on what happens to you; but on the other hand, what is there exactly internally to motivate ones' self. Of course, motivation from simpler things might do as well.

Wether we are equal as in value is subjective; Round here places consensus seems to be that humans should at least be treated equals in rights like to not be harmed, not be held captivity, freedoms and such. But further rights and duties are more disputed. (But over all the people of the world, it varies even more; for instance womens' rights.)

Of course the rights of humans is just a subset of the rights of creatures in general, and we seem very arbitrary about (non-human)animal rights. Actually i do not actually know any reasonable way to determine what they should be. I guess that what we associate with a creature is about the best we have. (But complexity of nervous system and such might be an indicator aswell.)

Human beings aren't that different from animals in that we have a hierarchical structure to our societies.

Ours is more complex and varied than those found in the animal kingdom but follows similar patterns. It is in our nature both to strive for dominance in society and to want to fit in to the overall pattern of society and be accepted.

In a lot of ways these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Most people fall predominantly into one or the other. I think this explains a lot about what happens in societies.

Why not? Couldn't having a clean conscience be a subset of allowing oneself to be happy?

I doubt Bundy made others happy striving for happiness.

You might make people happy when you get yourself happy, but it does not mean that people always will get happy when you achieve your goals.

Why do you use Bundy as an example? He was evil. He got his kicks at the ultimate expense of other people.

I don't like miserable people who feel victimized and put upon all the time. They're a drag. I like optimistic people who still want to control their own destiny rather than hand it off to the first pimp who promises them something.

Personally I don't like Bundy at all, but what's the point of judging another human? Does it accomplish anything other than making one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?

How many people have you killed, Eric ... in your line of work? It really wouldn't surprise me if it were more than Bundy. Do you really think it's worse for Bundy to have killed on his own volition, but it would have been perfectly acceptable had be been mindlessly following orders from his government? You enjoy your line of work as well, no?

The most we can say, is that we find Bundy's actions repugnant. But put in a battlefield situation, he'd be a celebrated hero for killing ... the very same action you condemn. It's all good, so long as we get oil at a cheaper rate. Or if someone commands us to kill.

Certainly. But that didn't answer my question.

Anyways, it's a bit of a moot point. I was going to play devil's advocate then forgot about the thread and no longer care to do so.

I place a greater value on minding one's own business than I do on the pursuit of happiness, personal or otherwise. Bundy still loses because he committed the most fundamentally invasive act there is multiple times.