Stumbling Across Virtue Ethics

While browsing my blogs and recapping the story NPR ran this morning on the Congressional ethics--does it exist?! I came across a site called PEA soup which had an interesting piece on Virtue Ethics---

"Richard Sylvan's Last Man thought experiment: You know that you are the last sentient being who will ever exist on earth. Beside you is a giant old redwood (or the Mona Lisa or whatnot). You could destroy it for no reason. Would it be wrong to? Some people try to argue that it would be wrong, but another take (defended by Tom Hill, Jr.) is that it would be show bad character, but not strictly speaking be wrong."

I think this calls into question the inherent value in any given object--Does the mona lisa hold an inherent value that has not been granted by human beings? Does any object for that matter, somehow "shelter" or house a goodness or value that could be violated even by the last person on earth? If so, then what does this mean about the "virtue" of objects, art, people extant in the present world? If it would be wrong to destroy the mona lisa after everyone who would view it were somehow extinguished, then is it more wrong to destroy presently? Is it more wrong? Maybe it's not a question of it being more or less wrong, but maybe a question of impact. Is it less wrong to kill a man with no family than a man with a wife and kids. No, because to say so would violate the inherent value in the person, though the action of killing the man with a family has a greater immediate impact on his environment.
Anyway, food for thought.