Hmm... Computer+HDD, my sketchbooks, my books, my figures, my clothes. The sketchbooks are crap but I'd really love to be able to look back someday and see the crap I drew. Actually, they might even be at the top of the list.

LET'S SEE HOW MUCH WE CAN CONFUSE THIS.

It's kind of a tough question. I thought about which I would least want destroyed for the above. However, there are a few ways to do this. There's maximization of expected utility- weighing the difficulties or impossibility of replacing the item and the impact of losing it with the expected utility (meant in the philosophically utilitarian way) of keeping it. But the computer isn't something I like because of what it is, only for what it holds. The loss of it wouldn't be bad if I could replace the data. so perhaps I should revise- the data on the computer is what should be on the list. But what about the internet? Another thing to consider. But what about emotional impact? Would it be better to call an item that gives one joy every time they see it as more of a favorite than one that doesn't? On a visceral level, it seems that an item that makes one happy is more qualified as a favorite item. I don't get warm fuzzies from just seeing the computer or going through the stuff on it. Nor do I especially like the sketchbooks- they're potential favorite items, to maximise expected utility.

I suppose I've gone about it in the wrong way- what my favorite object/accessory is is strictly present tense. However, there are still possible distinctions- is it the item that brings me most happiness on a day-to-day basis, or one that I attach most sentimental value to/would be sad about losing? It seems that the latter would be the best definition of favorite, after all. The first two things on my list are, surprisingly enough, eliminated.

But nay, let us discuss sentimental value further. Why should something with sentimental value be more of a favorite than something that brings us more happiness, assuming the above musings end at the conclusion? One could call it classic utilitarianism versus preference utilitarianism. Classic utilitarianism is about maximising happiness alone to the point of preference modification and wireheading, as it is called, while preference utilitarianism is about satisfying preferences. Now, going by the sentimental idea would be wrong by utilitarian standards, as it would result in less happiness. However, we cannot act as if we are rational and self-modifying agents- many would be saddened by the loss of the thing closer to our hearts regardless, and it could tip the scales back to preferring not to lose those things. So a classic utilitarian could rationally chose the things with most sentimental value instead of day-to-day happiness because of their being saddened by the loss despite their second-order preference being to not be saddened by it, so as to maximise utility. A preference utilitarian would digress- they would not want to wirehead or change their preferences. An example can be made as so: A classic utilitarian might think changing themselves so as to not to be sad about people dying would be a good idea, while a preference utilitarian would digress. Think of it as a program of some sort- if it is made to, say... aquire points of some sort by doing something, if there are loopholes that let it get points without actually doing what it was intended to do, it would. A classic utilitarian would in theory act the same way; foregoing actually doing something in favor of feeling as if they had done so. Basically, preference utilitarianism is about actually doing stuff and pure utilitarianism is about the feeling. So how does that relate to the original question? I don't know, my brain just asploded.

TL;DR: Sentimentality and self-modification from classic and preference utilitarian standpoints

also that was fun