• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, it’s a definition. I’m a utilitarian, so I only value pleasure and avoiding suffering.

          • yetiftw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            but what about a general definition of value that encapsulates everyone’s experiences and not only yours?

            • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t care who experiences the pleasure or suffering. Individual ego is an illusion. The self is a social construct. The divisions between oneself and others are a lie.

              • yetiftw@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                you misunderstand. you told me what you value. I asked for a definition of value. something can be valuable (by being valuable to someone else) even if you yourself do not value it

                • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Why would I agree that Harry Potter is valuable if I don’t and cannot value it, even for its net effect on others?