What would be the harm?

[bennyboy]

Hey, remember to add the humble aerobic life of the world for which oxygen is valuable despite their having no mind with which to produce a subjective evaluation!  In any case, that last bit of your statement was pigeon chess nonsense, and my answers to each question remains what they were from the outset.

You are still imposing your view of value onto non-agents. Either simple organisms DO have a primitive consciousness, in which case their motivated behaviors might be said to represent evaluations of their environment, or they do not, in which case there's no value except that which we imbue through our world view.

---

Well then that's that.  You're not discussing the same thing that moral theorists are.  

Now, might we expect you..like the neolithic hunter, if you could absorb the knowledge required to understand what they're talking about as he could absorb the knowledge of what a fire extinguisher does, to come to a rational agreement on the subject of our discussion?

You type a lot, but support very little.  Tell me, in your view, where do evaluations come from?  Are there evaluations without subjective agents?  Explain, since you seem to think so, by what mechanism anything could be said to have value if, for example, sentient life was wiped out?