In our previous post, we argued that sacrifice is signal—that the only meaningful way to demonstrate value is by giving something up for it. But there's a crucial refinement we need to make: sacrifice alone isn’t enough. To signal value, a sacrifice must be both willed and within one’s power.
Desire without capacity is cheap talk. Anyone can say “I would give anything for that,” but unless the sacrifice is real—actual, not hypothetical—it tells us nothing. Value is not in your dreams, your fantasies, or your stated intentions. Value is what you're willing and able to give up in practice, under constraint, when other options are on the table.
This insight cuts against a common sentimental error: confusing intense yearning with actual value. Someone might say they “value education above all else,” but if they consistently choose luxuries over tuition, or leisure over learning, then their revealed preferences say otherwise.
Counterfactual value isn’t value. Saying “I’d pay a million dollars for that… if I had it” expresses no actual value. It's noise, not signal. What matters is the opportunity cost of what you actually sacrifice—not what you would sacrifice in some parallel universe where you're wealthier, freer, or braver.
This clarification has important implications. It means value is always relative to the agent's situation—their abilities, resources, and tradeoffs. Two people might feel equally passionate about a cause, but the one who actually donates time or money values it more, in practice. Emotion isn’t irrelevant, but without action, it's undifferentiated heat. Only constrained sacrifice generates signal.
So when we speak of “value,” we don’t mean wishful thinking or imagined priorities. We mean what you were willing and able to give up—at cost to yourself—when the choice was real. Anything else is moral theater.