The Myth of Objective Value

The Case Against Value Without Agency

All value is subjective.

This is not merely a slogan or a simplification, but a rigorous philosophical position. Value does not float free in the world, inherent in objects or embedded in nature. It arises only in relation to agents who are capable of wanting, choosing, and sacrificing.

An object, state, or outcome has value only if someone would willingly trade for it or give something up to obtain it. Without a valuer, value is incoherent. There is no such thing as value "in itself" any more than there is money without a market.

This principle undermines many popular but confused ideas. Consider the environment: claims are often made that a rainforest or an endangered species has "intrinsic value." But in what sense, and to whom? If no one wants to preserve it—if no agent is willing to pay a cost to do so—then where is the value? The same applies to so-called cultural treasures, great works of art, or mathematical truths. Reverence for them can be genuine, but that reverence is always located in someone. It is not floating in the artifact itself.

Even the idea of a "public good" relies on this myth. The claim that roads or infrastructure have value outside of individual preferences presupposes an impossible standard: value without valuation. Free rider problems don’t change this—they merely illustrate that people often benefit from others' sacrifices without reciprocating. This may be a coordination problem, but it is not evidence of objective value.

Recognizing that value is subjective has profound implications. It clarifies the role of choice in agency. To choose is to reveal value through action. Preferences, trade-offs, and sacrifices all instantiate subjective value. Philosophically, this perspective aligns with decision theory, praxeology, and evolutionary psychology, each of which treats value as emerging from agent behavior rather than imposed from outside.

Abandoning the myth of objective value frees us to ask better questions. Not: What is it worth? but To whom? and What are they willing to give for it? This shift restores agency to its rightful place at the center of ethics, economics, and practical reasoning.