As I understand it, Dr. Pants' chief objection to my theory is based on the first paragraph on p. 17 in
BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf [It is safe to open this paper.]
In that paragraph I was endeavoring to argue that individual people are deep and complex, that if one begins to describe a person, one could go on and on, because there is so much there. If one knows his/her Ethics one may care to do this, to list many properties in a description if one is requested to do so, or if an appropriate occasion arises to do so. Why?
Because one gives attention and consideration to those he regards as a brother or a sister, a member of his family,
namely an instance of the human species; those who know their Ethics are inclusive, tolerant, generous, authentic human beings. They are transparent; they have integrity. They are optimistic, kind, ready to be of service. They respect themselves and they freely give respect to others. See also the first two paragraphs on page 15 of that paper for a better understanding.
Dr. Pants' contention is that
having countless properties [and thus, as you know, countless value - since the latter is a function of properties to which we give our attention] applies not only to individuals but also to everything, since (in his mind) one theoretically could list infinite properties of EVERYTHING, even, say, dog poo- poo.
His counter-argument to what I wrote is that everything has an infinity of properties.
I failed to make myself clear in that passage from Basic Ethics. What I ought to have said is that if we are interested in x, we will be able to list properties of x, we will gladly describe it, expanding upon it beyond its bare definition.
We will go into its exposition (as they say in Intensional Logic) and even its connotations. This is a reference to the intension of a concept.
If we care about something, or some project, we give it attention, we get involved. This applies to our hobbies, our goals to which we have made a commitment, and to those we love and/or identify with. The more we look, the more [properties] we find!
So I thank Dangerpants for calling my attention to how I could better explain what I meant. He performed a service; and in the next edition pf Basic Ethics the argument will be clarified as stated above.
Your comments are welcomed.