Like anyone else I feel inclined to believe that my value system (whichever it might be) has a better ground, but in a matter like this, which inherently deals with what should a human do with any goods (gold nibs here), each will defend his/her own value system.
In situations of inherent value conflict, I personally take the view that the way for coexistence is to zealously confine each party's sphere of influence, 'making' or keeping him/her unable to intervene when peers in the community and/or equals in society do something that offends a spectator's, and both enforce and reinforce that lack of power of the individual to dictate to others, leaving him/her only to attempt persuasion and live with his/her personal successes and failures at that task, without declaring any party as being in the 'right' or morally superior. Even if that means everyone has to watch his/her idea of a better world (or better tomorrow) gets undermined, trampled or burnt to the ground by others who share that world and have equal entitlement to (try to) shape the future as they see fit.
We may discuss and try to convince each other, but afterwards each one has to make his own mind and decisions.
Indeed, and I wouldn't want it any other way as a member of the human race. Luckily, some people are content to just practise (as individuals) what they preach while watching others take 'opposite' actions that neutralise one's efforts, and feel they can look themselves in the mirror while the world moves and changes around them in ways that are not theirs to control or even steer.
Or, as someone here once infinitely more succinctly said to me, "You do you."