You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] openmind 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think this fallacy is also often seen in the "intrinsic" currency argument. Some people don't realize that value is completely subjective. Therefore different people will value the same things at different prices. Values are subjective so nothing has intrinsic value.

But such a statement is being strict with semantics. Often people will recognize that certain things have intrinsic utility. This is valid as it simply conveys that different things are suited to certain applications e.g. a hammer is good for hitting a nail. But again intrinsic utility doesn't necessarily mean value follows.

0
0

[–] Lucre ago  (edited ago)

I'd be careful with the word "utility." It already has a rigorous economic definition. Lots of people get confused when talking about economics because the field's use of "utility" can easily be conflated with that more common "task-usefulness" meaning.

0
0

[–] TeardropsFromHell [S] ago 

Utility however can change with time. A hammer has utility for hitting a nail but what if all nails became self-hitting and did not then need a hammer? It would maintain the utility but lose all value.