Do people still have value to you?

Non-instrumental social value, that is. I'm sure they still have moral value for you still.

And by "non-instrumental" I just mean something you value for the sake of it, as opposed to valuing it because it enables you to experience/achieve/etc. something else (like how money is usually seen as valuable to the extent that it can buy you things, be passed down to enrich your progeny, etc.).

I'm sure the ones out of you that are parents, or have SOs, will say yes. I'm more leaning towards no, myself. After I reached a certain age experiencing social dynamics for the sake of it has become almost "conceptually dubious" to me.

In fact, I suspect I only interact or post things online instrumentally -- with the goal of putting boredom at bay or something like that.

(And, yaeh, I'm anticipating that it is plausible that someone here has the view that "All social valuing is instrumental" or some such. You're still welcome to elaborate on your position, if that is the case for you.)

Parents
  • I'm not sure I understand what you're asking?

    If you mean should all peple be given respect for being human, then yes. Does it mean that I whant to hang out with them, then, no.

    When you use the word 'instrimentally', what do you mean?

  • It’s a philosophical approach which evaluates theories based on their usefulness and practicality. It’s not something most people would come across unless they had studied philosophy at uni.

  • Thanks, ArchaeC, I still don't understand the question or it's context and I'd count myself as fairly well educated, so I'd imagine a lot more people are struggling too?

    What Debbie said.

    What is the purpose of asking such a question? 

    What is the hoped for outcome? I ask that because although peole ask these questions and often say theres no right or wrong answer, there usually is. Its the one the questioner agrees with, often trying to make themselves look better at the expense of others. 

  • I don't know what you mean by "no point" there.

    I'm assuming the way you re-phrased my original question somehow preserves the moral-social value distinction I introduced in my post, but in some way that is believed by you to be easier for most people to understand.

    Just to be clear: I suspect I was mostly either just curious, or trying to generate conversation "indirectly", or indirectly attempting to survey whether people here would relate to what I said.

  • What is the purpose of asking such a question?

    I suspect I was mostly either just curious, or trying to generate conversation "indirectly", or indirectly attempting to survey whether people here would relate to what I said.

Reply Children
No Data