If you think nothing is “valuable in itself” / “objectively valuable”, why do you think so?
I think that’s the wrong way round. If you want to claim things have some property, then you have to put forward evidence they do. My strongest argument that things do not objectively have value is, why on earth would you think they do?
It’s also clear that this discussion is fruitless. The only way to make progress will be to give some sort of definition for “objective value” at which point this will degenerate into an argument about semantics.
I think that’s the wrong way round. If you want to claim things have some property, then you have to put forward evidence they do. My strongest argument that things do not objectively have value is, why on earth would you think they do?
It’s also clear that this discussion is fruitless. The only way to make progress will be to give some sort of definition for “objective value” at which point this will degenerate into an argument about semantics.
I didn’t want to start a long discussion. My idea was to get some random feedback to see if I was missing some important ideas I had not considered