Property rights, border control etc there are numerous such ethical reasons for violence or the threat of it which is esentially the same thing. It is obviously to be pointed out that ethical standards are always subjective.

The idea of universal ethical standards is pure fiction not very different from the worship of an almighty god. Of course it’s a powerful argument that has been used since ancient times. Whatever benefits the tribe is ethical. Spanish bringing the wrath of god to the incas and Aztecs. Ethics being an enabling doctrine for horrible actions. Primitive tribes eating human flesh believing that they’ll inherit the powers of the dead warriors and for food anyway being scarce. Ethical is a comparative argument for the right choice that people make for social reasons. The ethics in the west have of course developed into effort minimazing suffering, but obviously it is just a peak of the iceberg.

If you look at the laws for example in western countries it's like this. The exemptions (like self defence) are written as separate laws or can in some other way later be used in the process as an argument for defence. It's like -> Yeah you did a bad thing, but you did not have a choice.

Well these are the rules for citizens. State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically".

I think it is pretty straightforward. You pick up a chili pepper, you eat it and enjoy the flavor and the spiciness. The intrinsic value is in the experience - the chemical reaction that happens. That's what gets you up and go eat that chili pepper. You might say that it's the enjoyment that is the abstract intrinsic value here and the chili pepper only being instrumental. But you might also say that the enjoyment is the instrumental value that makes you eat the chili and thus gives you sustenance. So put simply there can only be instrumental value if there is an intrinsic value, and it all depends on the context. Then what might be the ultimate intrinsic value? Survival and reproduction maybe for us. Or well it seems to be pretty obvious. The ultimate intrinsic value beyond that. Heh better start a religion.

Anyway in the grand scheme of things that we aren't aware of we are surely instruments ourselves too. Some think to find that ultimate intrinsic value. But to tell the truth I think these dual concepts are pretty much useless. Language games - math problems bases on bad premises. I think Wittgenstein said something akin to -" You can look at the world with help of language, but the language becomes a problem because we cannot look at it with the help of the world".

But lets put good old Ludwig to bed and take the eastern philosophical route. Then you could say that the infinite instrumental-intrinsic pairing (as this is the language used in this case) is the intrinsic value. In this case nothing in itself has got intrinsic value, but everything as a whole has got intrinsic value. This then again fights the purpose of the word intrinsic value, and thus make the whole concept barren.

So my conclusion after all this rambling is: Value presupposes an object to be valued and a subject to value it. Lets take bees and flowers for example. Which is which. Depends on the perspective. What about flowers and a girl picking them? Are the bees also included in the flowers as an object? A little flower factory in the forest. Then a man buys those flowers and gives them to her woman. 9 months and there is a new beekeeper born. Maybe this naïve story sheds some light on this problem. It does for me at least. Nothing in the end has got intrinsic value because then there would be nothing but that. George Carlin joked god created humans to produce plastic and fill the earth with it. Maybe he was onto something. When we dump plastic, it's got no instrumental value.

Okay I read that quora thread halfway through. The guys arguments are in conflict with each other. He says that consciousness precedes everything and is in everything. So right here he confirms he cannot be a solipsist, bcs then his mind is made of same magic dust (consciousness) as everyone else's. So he thinks there not to be a rational way of being sure that other minds exist and also holds a belief of other minds existing. But of course if you would ask him of this belief he holds, he would go into making rational arguments for it. Twisted.

Solipsism is more like a truman show type situation. How can I know people around me aren't actors?