To be fair, a hamburger is considered more valuable than a human in a capitalist society.
To say that it's
more valuable, lacks necessary nuance. The hamburger, to the consumer, has a more direct value, than the stranger bringing it to the consumer. Strangers, though, often have a greater value to the consumer, than any one hamburger, less directly. The stranger's presence aids the bringing of the hamburger, and more---of whatever other service---to the consumer. One stranger likely contributes more than one hamburgers' worth.
And then, of course, to whom? To one consumer, perhaps, some stranger is lower valued than a hamburger. To another, maybe too. Maybe to
each consumer. To all consumers? A hamburger is valuable to
one consumer. The value of the stranger, is to many. In sum, the stranger may be worth more.
Upon a closer inspection of the hamburger, one may find many strangers participating in the added value. In sum, to the consumer, those strangers' value is
exactly the value of the burger. Those strangers, though, bring more benefit, to the consumer, than by that one burger. They bring another burger, to another consumer, who thereby better brings value to other consumers, etc.
Perhaps it is a bit shallow, to consider the value of a person, to another, in terms of how much they contribute to the bringing of hamburgers, or whatever other service; nonetheless, to any consumer, that is where the ultimate value is. Rather, the value is exclusively
in the consumer; others may only bring the hamburger so far, before it's more efficient for the consumer to complete their own value, ingesting, enjoying.
