"viewed as assets to buy and sell for a profit, and nothing more."
I'm not sure this act in itself is morally neutral, imo. There's reasons ethical concerns about objectification (in the older 'treating something/one as an object' formulation of it) pop up not-infrequently through time.
Reducing something to a market view of itself is a choice. Similarly, seeing something as being more complicated but turning away because 'it doesn't have to be'.
Now, I'm not trying to suggest you should take up my concerns here. I'm not saying "you're terrible for this!" in any way. It's just an interesting springboard of a question, what do we see as 'morally neutral' and what has moral salience?
I'm not sure this act in itself is morally neutral, imo. There's reasons ethical concerns about objectification (in the older 'treating something/one as an object' formulation of it) pop up not-infrequently through time.
Reducing something to a market view of itself is a choice. Similarly, seeing something as being more complicated but turning away because 'it doesn't have to be'.
Now, I'm not trying to suggest you should take up my concerns here. I'm not saying "you're terrible for this!" in any way. It's just an interesting springboard of a question, what do we see as 'morally neutral' and what has moral salience?