This reply takes advantage of the opportunity of a dialectical opponent, represented by your comment, to address abstract issues alluded to by your words of choice. It is not intended to argue or refute your worldview directly.
> is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person
Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include:
-the lives of more than one other person
-severe changes in the quality of life for many people
-significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale
Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes:
-the life of oneself
-the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members
Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention.
> maybe I'm simply being too soft
The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might.
> is there anything more important to anyone ... [than the life] of another person
Behind the veil of ignorance which equates all persons, things which might reasonably be considered more important include:
-the lives of more than one other person
-severe changes in the quality of life for many people
-significant environmental degradation, and other systemic alterations of sufficient scale
Allowing for the criteria to include the differences between individuals, the most immediate additions to the above list becomes:
-the life of oneself
-the preservation of the lives and quality of life of one's family members
Further, although our current legal system precludes it, the framework of thought exists for very fine grain gradations in the differing values considered inherent in different people, as expressed by e.g. the German weregild system [0]; under such precepts, allocations of attention would be prioritized following the accepted worth of each object of attention.
> maybe I'm simply being too soft
The perspective assuming a position of ignorance is often considered "soft" and idealistic, in contrast to the "hard", realistic, non-egalitarian stance here epitomized by the system of man-price. I propose that this is the common interpretation. However, I counter that the former is only effectively realizable by a juridical system of great strength and resources, before which all men can be operationally equated because the marginal burden any one case places on the faculties of the law is negligible. Therefore, perhaps you voice your position not from reasoning aligned with softness, but rather that aligned with awesome and as-yet-non-extant might.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild