Surely, out of context, that makes great sense. “Worth” all by itself can indeed be construed as financial, monetary. BUT note, in the 1985 principles it refers to “inherent worth and dignity.”
I know that this will seem technical, but when you have a construction A and B, that conveys that A and B are the same KINDS of things.
Apples and oranges are both fruit
Green eggs and ham are both a breakfast thing
Supple and limber are both traits of good health
Goats and donkeys are both farm animals, etc.
So A and B are examples of the same KIND of thing.
By contrast,
Goats and sky scrapers are DIFFERENT things
Apples and dogs are DIFFERENT things
Etc.
In our UU history, we talk about ‘inherent worth and dignity”. These are the same sorts of things. Merit and dignity would seem similar. But $$ and dignity are NOT the same sorts of things.
So, “Inherent worth and dignity” both anchor in goodness.
The interpretation of slavery and monetary valuation is NOT what we are talking about. Only what emerges if you divorce language from its context.
Hence, “inherent worth and dignity” speaks of just that —- the INHERENT worth and dignity.
@KLusignan, @Janet, @UUFPMichael, @manningmiller