More tedious metaethics

[Justin Schwartz]

> >>It's probably a good idea not to fetishize "value" as if it were
> >>some substance that ethical action intends to maximize.
> >
> >No one thinks value is a substance.
>
>Save Karl Marx, of course, who thought value was created by
>"productive labor", and could not be created or destroyed--but only
>transformed and transferred--thereafter...
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: The value of a commodity could be added to thereafter by more 
>productive labor creating more value.
>
>  It could be destroyed if the underlying use-value were destroyed.  Value 
>requires a use-value substratrum in Marx's model.
>

Use value's a relation too, for Marx: it's a relation of being useful for 
some purpose that someone has.


>Marx's meaning of commodity value in political economy doesn't seem to be 
>identical with "moral value" as on this thread. Marx does seem to make 
>political and social values prior to "moral" values. His metaethics is 
>politics and socialist sociality.
>

It has nothing to do with moral value. Nuclear bombs have use value, because 
the properties of plutonium make them useful for the immoral purposes some 
people have of killing millions of people.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com