• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think this is a matter of terminology.

    You’re talking monetary value/worth only. They’re talking about value and worth in a broader sense.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Even there, something gets MORE worth when it’s used again, even to sit on a shelf and look pretty.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That, my homie, is a matter of perspective. Things can have value/worth without that as well. It ascribes value a weight based on usage rather than money. Which is fine! Value is relatively relative ;)

        Things can have value/worth without a connection to a human’s perception of that thing. It gets pretty nebulous and woo-woo, but the principle is valid.

        I guess what I’m also saying is that utilitarian thinking isn’t the only way to approach the discussion. But I’m also saying that utilitarian thinking is a valid part of the discussion. But when it comes down to utilitarian versus non utilitarian, it isn’t a discussion, it’s an argument about being right. Which is what the thread turned into towards the end.