prof wrote:When I report that people often Intrinsically value their mothers - that I-'value (the Intrinsic Value dimension) is frequently applied that way - this is an empirical observation. I-value does not have to be applied that way; it's just what people are prone to do.
That doesn't make any difference. It is not an objective quantitative distinction to say that one object has more values than another because it has some type of values that the other does not. It is only true if the object has more values of every type. If you want to claim that object A has more values than object B, that is fine. Count all their values and let us know when you have finished this infinite task.
I tell you what, I will make it easier for you. Don't worry about your mum for now, just find some dirt (a small pile, enough to fill a shoe box), and tell me exactly how many properties that pile of dirt contains. Don't leave any out, I will know if you cheated. Do remember to count the I-Values while you are there.
When you finish, put a small twig on top of the dirt and count again - because the sum of the properties of the pile of dirt has now grown exponentially larger (than the preceding infinity). When you complete that doubly-infinite count, we will add a worm to the pile, and give it a name so it becomes a pet and has special properties. Then you can count again.
Neither Hartman, nor this writer, are sneaking in "qualitative" values into the formal structure, but it is a fact that quantity at times becomes quality, as when given enough heat water transforms from a liquid into a gas, known as steam. When I give enough attention to a pigmented canvas, it may transform in my consciousness from "just another painting" to "a world-class masterwork!!"
It was probably a mistake to bring art into this. If you were able to use quantitative assessments of properties to establish a science of ethics with actions and morals as data points, you would also be able to scientifically determine art.*
So please explain how you intend to measure the Mona Lisa versus some Shakespeare. Obviously there is lots of Shakespeare, so you ought to be able to say exactly how many pages of that equals one Mona Lisa.
Naturally you cannot achieve this task because it is babble and nonsense. You can't turn the subjective quality of art into science by measurement. Not even measurement of special subjective yet somehow I-values that aren't qualitative in nature.
Your argument is grounded on a claim that "It turns out that “value” is a function of properties: the more properties, the more value."
You are trying to answer the most difficult questions there are with the simplest and laziest answers you can find. That's not a viable plan.
* you wouldn't need to worry about philosophy either, you could count the properties of Wittgenstein and measure those against the properties of Kant and just declare the winner.