• 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?