You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
"better or worse" implies some criteria to be judged on. The criteria we judge others on differs from individual to individual.
Of the criteria that are objective, there is difference among individuals (EG: we cannot say that everyone is equally tall). Of the criteria thats subjective, the evaluation differs between each individual (EG: beauty)
For both cases, objective and subjective criteria, not all people are equal.
Equality and "relative worth", or whatever you want to call it, aren't the same thing, and since the original premise was that no one is "better or worse" than another, not "different", the point remains that a definition is needed for "better" or "worse".
there are people better at certain activities than others are. We need to define "better"
If we go down this path of definitions, we also need to define the term "person". Given the dehumanization that happens during war and terrorism, the person defining better has a major impact on the definition.
Depending on what we define for good and bad, people can be shown to be different. E.g. humor, attractiveness, kindness, intelligence etc.
This does not mean that people are not different. It also does not mean that some do not realize their full potential.