lol. If you want to talk about logic you should avoid the straw man fallacy and address what I analogized instead of responding to the dissimilars which aren't in question.
If two things were the same in all respects there would be no analogy, an analogy compares a similar relationship.
What you just did was akin to my saying 'An electrical circuit is like a water current', and your responding 'no, that's very different, for one thing, electricity isn't wet, water is' which is blatently to miss the whole fuckin point.
It was no straw man, it was precisely what you said, and I addressed how it was a fallacy, it had no bearing on the concept being discussed. A synonymous comparison between two things which are not alike is indeed a fallacy, and that's precisely what you said. I've already explained why the tree/carbon dioxide example is quite different from a mother's love for her child, if you can't see that then I can't help you. If anything, a tree's relationship to carbon dioxide is more akin to a child's relationship to its mother, NOT the mother's relationship to its child.
An electricity flowing through a circuit would be an apt analogy to water or vice versa, but what you gave regarding the tree and mother and child was not, because it did not resemble the original relationship I posited, and was thus irrelevant and fallacious as it pertains to the concept being discussed.
because an ant can't assign or overcome value, it is intrinsic and inherent to it. Just as the mother loves the child instinctually, not rationally, and doesn't assign value to it. either they both have some instinctual value which affirms the thing naturally valued has intrinsic value or not.
Sure, ants can't invent extrinsic values, but I wasn't talking about that at all, so again you've missed the point and avoided the argument at hand entirely
I dont' think you're understanding the difference between intrinsic characteristics and attributes versus intrinsic meaning and value. I'm talking about the latter, not the former. Ants, having little capacity for reason or abstract thought, are not an apt example, as they are not humans and thus cannot actively assign value themselves, so their mention is moot. Intrinsic value as it relates to humanity is the nature of the discussion, in case you hadn't gathered that.
You just admitted to a major problem without knowing it. You just said "the mother LOVES the child INSTINCTUALLY." Since when was love an instinct? By my recknoning, you basically just said something akin to "the mother recognizes intrinsic value in the child by instinctually assigning value to the child." It makes no sense for one to "love instinctually." Because of the nature of choice and volition, intrinsic value becomes more than simply instinct, because it can be overridden in humanity whereas this is much more rare in the animal kingdom. That's the difference here. The human's ability to transcend or will itself to overcome what is intrinsic is what neccesitates it as a separate property intrinsic to whatever is being affected by it, rather than a subjective trait whose value is completely up to the individual. The fact that one can recognize value, but then spurn or deny or disregard that value is a strong argument for exactly what I have been positing.
is intrinsic value a concept or a percept? make up your mind. if it's immaterial it can't be perceived but still we can conceptualize it, but how are we going to find it? I can conceive of all humans being linked to three other animals, one land, one sea, one air, and these three make up part of the soul of the human being... but what does my impossible to perceive concept mean? it's a meaningless concept.
One need not actively and consciously percieve through the 5 senses to percieve. What of "electricity" between two people in love? What organ is that percieved through? It's a feeling. Intrinsic value is percieved in this way. We need not find it because it has been present since the dawn of mankind. We've been either listening to it or defying it since we gained the faculties of free will. But it's always been there, in the form of love, in the form of the conscience, the form of honor, the form of bravery, the form of altruism, the form of mercy, the form of compassion. It is far from meaningless, it's the basis for all that is good in man, and (along with Reason) the only thing that keeps man from collapsing into barbaric hedonism.
so when we can acknowledge the tree valued carbon-dioxide without its consent or active implication, then carbon-dioxide must have some metaphysical intrinsic value. so how should humans change their behavior now aware of this new intrinsically valuable element? It's nonsensical.
A tree valuing anything is nonsensical, I'm really not sure why you keep bringing such a thought up. A tree cannot value either objectively or subjectively because a tree does not value anything, it isn't conscious, let alone to the level of humanity. The tree and what it breathes has no bearing on anything being discussed here, how can you not see that? It's a false analogy (a fallacy).
How should humans change their behavior? As I've said already, they should begin to listen to this yearning of intrinsic value instead of trying to deny, disregard, or transcend it, and I posit that the world would be a much better place to live in for all of us.
you've already said they can't be observed because they're metaphysical. But ignoring that problem, the rapist should observe and listen to his intrinsic values which he didn't choose, as you believe they are inherent and intrinsic for a particular reason?
As I said before, "observed" need not take on the form of sensual apprehension, but regardless, in that sentence I was using "observed" in the sense of the word that means "partaken of" such as in "we 'observed' a holiday today." Perhaps a poor choice of wording, sorry for the confusion.
For the rapist, it was not a matter of "not choosing the intrinsic values," but rather choosing that which was not his intrinsic value. It wasn't a lack of action, but an excess, a transcendence of Conscience (not consciousness, that's something different) through volition in spite of intrinsic value that resulted in the action he took.
