This is mainly an (yet unsuccessful) attempt to develop what I understood as a Wittgensteinean suggestion here for how we could justify claims of the form ‘I know that p’, where p describes what is happening in the speaker’s environment, by performing certain empirical actions. Since these are my personal notes, some other thoughts are intermixed. If you have any feedback, please leave a comment bellow.
We are more inclined to say that a particular work of art has artistic value (and no other work of art, no matter how similar, could have the same value) and less inclined to say of a particular action that it has a moral value in itself, as a particular action. A kind of action has a moral value. Moral values are linked to generalizations in a way artistic values are not. Is there any justification for this?