I see your point but I don't share that view. If your grandmother's ring has sentimental value to you, why not just call it exactly that, "sentimental value"? The same goes for relics to different groups of people...if the value to that group of individuals is ceremonial or ritualistic; call it exactly that, not "intrinsic". Intrinsic means "unto itself" or "inherent" which is defined as 'existing permanently within something.' The sentimental value that you attach to your grandmother's ring dies with you...it is not existing permanently within the ring. That means that sentimental value you label "intrinsic" is not intrinsic at all. Same goes for the hypothetical group that worships a relic - the ritualistic value they attach to that relic is not permanently within that relic...it requires those specific worshipers holding certain views about that relic. Just because people find something useful, doesn't mean that utility they derive from it is an intrinsic value. Now going back to necessities for humans like clean air, food, and water...I make a distinction between extremely valuable to or essential, vital, or required by us and "intrinsic value". But I think this is a bit more complex than discerning the difference between utility or even intrinsic properties of commodities like gold and silver (as just 2 examples) and an alleged "intrinsic value" which I have already shared my position on. The reason I think it's more complicated is because it goes into the realm of philosophy and ethics in my view. Maybe this particular discussion is best for a thread in a different section of the forum...I could be opening up a big can of worms here. I'll give it more thought. I have been enjoying all the views here and just because I haven't responded to all comments doesn't mean that I won't or that I don't think your perspective is thoughtful or worth strongly considering. .
