This analysis explores neutral value ranking in aesthetics and welfare, suggesting a new perspective on evaluative equivalence.
Can two items both be neutral in value yet differ in rank? I argue that they can, with significant implications: not everything neutral should be treated equally. This challenges the widespread assumption that neutral value marks a point of evaluative equivalence. I defend the intuitive case for neutral hierarchies through examples from aesthetics and welfare, then show that both major accounts of neutral value—comparative and non-comparative—can accommodate such hierarchies once divorced from certain theoretical commitments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrés G. Garcia (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: