My point is that, for the kinds of values we're talking about, there is no objectively correct answer.
If you believe that it's better for people in the future to deal with global warming, that's not objectively right or wrong. There are no tests or proofs to validate. That's the thing about value preferences: they cannot be proven wrong because they are never wrong.
But I do agree with you that it's better to argue the root of the issue. If people could articulate what their actual beliefs/preferences are, then it would be easier to have a productive discussion.
If you believe that it's better for people in the future to deal with global warming, that's not objectively right or wrong. There are no tests or proofs to validate. That's the thing about value preferences: they cannot be proven wrong because they are never wrong.
But I do agree with you that it's better to argue the root of the issue. If people could articulate what their actual beliefs/preferences are, then it would be easier to have a productive discussion.