Caring Objectively

In class I brought up the issue of whether we can care for an object. I claimed that one can care for an object, extending from the fact that one can attribute emotional value to an object (which most everyone in the class agreed with.) The primary objection to to this claim is that people cannot care about objects that do not have intrinsic value i.e. inanimate objects.

Professor Johnson accurately described the difference (at least in regard to this particular discussion) between care and respect. Essentially, in order to respect something is to recognize it for its potential and treat it with due consideration. To care for something is to value it emotionally. I think that if we understand these premises, than the argument becomes easily resolved. We can discuss how the object itself is not the "true" focus of our emotional attachment or value, but the memories or other abstract extrinsic qualities which we associate with the object is what we actually care about. This may be true, but even then those extrinsic qualities are themselves objects, if only in an abtract sense, and at the very least they are not qualities inherent to any other being other than ourselves. . As Tom said in class, objects can serve as the embodiment of our emotional attachment, and that is all we need to value them emotionally.