Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bozobot t1_izt0wkh wrote

Reply to comment by timbgray in Why You Should Be Moral (answering Prichard's dilemma) by contractualist

Oxygen isn’t valuable in itself. It’s the living that we value. OP is talking about things that we value for their own sake.

0

PaxNova t1_iztprrj wrote

Just the opposite. He's saying that if we accept that our sentimental things hold value, we should respect that others' sentimental objects hold similar value to them.

Because I don't want to throw away my macaroni picture, I should not force others to throw away theirs.

0

Bozobot t1_iztqatl wrote

You aren’t disagreeing with me. We value sentiments for their own sake. The macaroni picture isn’t what he really values, it’s the feelings that the picture elicits.

1

PaxNova t1_izttosl wrote

Right, but he's suggesting that it holds true. Through experience, I can guarantee that my macaroni picture is worth absolutely nothing to a random stranger. They may recognize that it holds value to another, but they are not that other and will trash it.

Nobody puts up "found macaroni art" posters.

1

Bozobot t1_iztu65b wrote

You aren’t understanding. The sentiments that the macaroni picture elicit are the valuable thing that we can recognize in another. It’s not about the value of the picture, it’s about recognizing the value of sentimental feelings.

0