Value theory

Concept in sociology and philosophy

This article is about the generic concept of value. For its application in economics, see Theory of value (economics).

In ethics and the social sciences, value theory involves various approaches that examine how, why, and to what degree humans value things and whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. Within philosophy, it is also known as ethics or axiology.

Traditionally, philosophical investigations in value theory have sought to understand the concept of "the good". Today, some work in value theory has trended more towards empirical sciences, recording what people do value and attempting to understand why they value it in the context of psychology, sociology, and economics.[1]

In ecological economics, value theory is separated into two types: donor-type value and receiver-type value. Ecological economists tend to believe that 'real wealth' needs an accrual-determined value as a measure of what things were needed to make an item or generate a service.[2]

In other fields, theories posit the importance of values as an analytical independent variable (including those put forward by Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Jürgen Habermas). Classical examples of sociological traditions which deny or downplay the question of values are institutionalism, historical materialism (including Marxism), behaviorism, pragmatic-oriented theories, postmodern philosophy and various Objectivist-oriented theories.

At the general level, there is a difference between moral and natural goods. Moral goods are those that have to do with the conduct of persons, usually leading to praise or blame. Natural goods, on the other hand, have to do with objects, not persons. For example, the statement "Mary is a good person" uses 'good' very differently than in the statement "That is good food".

Ethics is mainly focused on moral goods rather than natural goods, while economics has a concern in what is economically good for the society but not an individual person and is also interested in natural goods. However, both moral and natural goods are equally relevant to goodness and value theory, which is more general in scope.

## Definition

[edit]

Value theory is the systematic study of values. Also called axiology and theory of values, it is the branch of philosophy that examines which things are good and what it means for something to be good. It distinguishes different types of values and explores how they can be measured and compared. It also studies whether values are a fundamental aspect of reality and how they affect phenomena such as emotion, desire, decision, and action.[3] Its topic is relevant to many human endeavors because values are guiding principles that underlie the political, economic, scientific, and personal spheres.[4] Value theory analyzes and evaluates phenomena such as well-being, utility, beauty, human life, knowledge, wisdom, freedom, love, and justice.[5]

The precise definition of value theory is disputed and some theorists rely on alternative characterizations. In a broad sense, value theory is a catch-all label that encompasses all philosophical disciplines studying evaluative or normative topics. According to this view, value theory is one of the main branches of philosophy and includes ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, political philosophy, and philosophy of religion.[6] A similar broad characterization sees value theory as a multidisciplinary area of inquiry that covers research from fields like sociology, anthropology, psychology, and economics in addition to philosophy.[7] In a narrow sense, value theory is a subdiscipline of ethics that is particularly relevant to the school of consequentialism since it determines how to assess the value of consequences.[8]

The word axiology has its origin in the ancient Greek terms ἄξιος (axios, meaning 'worth' or 'value') and λόγος (logos, meaning 'study' or 'theory of').[9] Even though the roots of value theory reach back to the ancient period, this area of thought was only conceived as a distinct discipline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the term axiology was coined.[10] The terms value theory and axiology are usually used as synonyms but some philosophers distinguish between them. According to one characterization, axiology is a subfield of value theory that limits itself to theories about what things are valuable and how valuable they are.[11][a] The term timology is an older and less common synonym.[13]

## Value

[edit]

Main article: Value (ethics and social sciences)

Value is the worth, usefulness, or merit of something.[b] Many evaluative terms are employed to talk about value, including good, best, great, and excellent as well as their negative counterparts, like bad and terrible.[16] Some value terms, like good and bad, are pure evaluations in that they only express the value of something without any additional descriptive content. They are known as thin evaluative concepts. Thick evaluative concepts, like courageous and cruel, provide more information by expressing other qualities besides the evaluation, such as character traits.[17] Values are often understood as degrees that cover positive and negative magnitudes corresponding to good and bad. The terms better and worse are used to compare degrees, but it is controversial whether this is possible in all cases.[18]

Evaluative terms are sometimes distinguished from normative or deontic terms. Normative terms, like right, wrong, and obligation, prescribe actions or other states by expressing what ought to be done or what is required.[19] Evaluative terms have a wider scope because they are not limited to what people can control or are responsible for. For example, involuntary events like digestion and earthquakes can have a positive or negative value even if they are not right or wrong in a strict sense.[20] Despite the distinction, evaluative and normative concepts are closely related. For example, the value of the consequences of an action may affect whether this action is right or wrong.[21]

Value theorists distinguish various types or categories of values. The different classifications overlap and are based on considerations like the source, beneficiary, and function of the value.[22]

### Intrinsic and instrumental

[edit]

Main article: Instrumental and intrinsic value

A thing has intrinsic or final value if it is good in itself or good for its own sake. This means that it is good independent of external factors or outcomes. A thing has extrinsic or instrumental value if it is useful or leads to other good things. In other words, it is a means to bring about a desired end. For example, tools like microwaves or money have instrumental value thanks to the useful functions they perform.[23] In some cases, the thing produced this way has itself instrumental value, like when using money to buy a microwave. This can result in a chain of instrumentally valuable things in which each link gets its value by causing the following link. Intrinsically valuable things stand at the endpoint of these chains and ground the value of all the links that come before them.[24]

One way to distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value relies on a thought experiment that imagines the valuable thing in isolation from everything else. In such a situation, purely instrumentally valuable things lose their value since they serve no purpose while purely intrinsically valuable things remain valuable.[25] According to a common view, pleasure is one of the sources of intrinsic value. Other suggested sources include life, health, beauty, freedom, and knowledge.[26]

Intrinsic and instrumental value are not exclusive categories. As a result, a thing can have both intrinsic and instrumental value if it is both good in itself while also leading to other good things.[27] In a similar sense, a thing can have different instrumental values at the same time, both positive and negative ones. This is the case if some of its consequences are good while others are bad. The total instrumental value of a thing is the value balance of all its consequences.[28]

Because instrumental value depends on other values, it is an open question whether it should be understood as a value in a strict sense. For example, the overall value of a chain of causes leading to an intrinsically valuable thing remains the same if instrumentally valuable links are added or removed without affecting the intrinsically valuable thing. The observation that the overall value does not change is sometimes used as an argument that the things added or removed do not have value.[29]

Traditionally, value theorists have used the terms intrinsic value and final value interchangeably, just like the terms extrinsic value and instrumental value. This practice has been questioned in the 20th century based on the idea that they are similar but not identical concepts. According to this view, a thing has intrinsic value if the source of its value is an intrinsic property, meaning that the value does not depend on how the thing is related to other objects. Extrinsic value, by contrast, depends on external relations. This view sees instrumental value as one type of extrinsic value based on causal relations. At the same time, it allows that there are other types of non-instrumental extrinsic value. Final value is understood as what is valued for its own sake, independent of whether intrinsic or extrinsic properties are responsible.[30][c]

### Absolute and relative

[edit]

Another distinction relies on the contrast between absolute and relative value. Absolute value, also called value simpliciter, is a form of unconditional value. A thing has relative value if its value is limited to certain considerations or viewpoints.[32]

One form of relative value is restricted to the type of an entity, expressed in sentences like "That is a good knife" or "Jack is a good thief". This form is known as attributive goodness since the word "good" modifies the meaning of another term. To be attributively good as a certain type means to possess certain qualities characteristic of that type. For example, a good knife is sharp and a good thief has the skill of stealing without getting caught. Attributive goodness contrasts with predicative goodness. The sentence "Pleasure is good" is an example since the word good is used as a predicate to talk about the unqualified value of pleasure.[33] Attributive and predicative goodness can accompany each other, but this is not always the case. For instance, being a good thief is not necessarily a good thing.[34]

Another type of relative value restricts goodness to a specific person. Known as personal value,[d] it expresses what benefits a particular person, promotes their welfare, or is in their interest. For example, a poem written by a child may have personal value for the parents even if the poem lacks value for others. Impersonal value, by contrast, is good in general without restriction to any specific person or viewpoint.[36] Some philosophers, like G. E. Moore, reject the existence of personal values, holding that all values are impersonal. Others have proposed theories about the relation between personal and impersonal value. The agglomerative theory says that impersonal value is nothing but the sum of all personal values. Another view understands impersonal value as a specific type of personal value taken from the perspective of the universe as a whole.[37]

Agent-relative value is sometimes contrasted with personal value as another person-specific limitation of the evaluative outlook. Agent-relative values affect moral considerations about what a person is responsible for or guilty of. For example, if Mei promises to pick Pedro up from the airport then an agent-relative value obligates Mei to drive to the airport. This obligation is in place even if it does not benefit Mei, in which case there is an agent-relative value without a personal value. In consequentialism,[e] agent-relative values are often discussed in relation to ethical dilemmas. One dilemma revolves around the question of whether an individual should murder an innocent person if this prevents the murder of two innocent people by a different perpetrator. The agent-neutral perspective tends to affirm this idea since one murder is preferable to two. The agent-relative perspective tends to reject this conclusion, arguing that the initial murder should be avoided since it negatively impacts the agent-relative value of the individual.[39]

Traditionally, most value theorists see absolute value as the main topic of value theory and focus their attention on this type. Nonetheless, some philosophers, like Peter Geach and Philippa Foot, have argued that the concept of absolute value by itself is meaningless and should be understood as one form of relative value.[40]

### Other distinctions

[edit]

Other classifications of values have been proposed without a widely accepted main classification.[41] Some focus on the types of entities that have value. They include distinct categories for entities like things, the environment, individuals, groups, and society. Another subdivision pays attention to the type of benefit involved and encompasses material, economic, moral, social, political, aesthetic, and religious values. Classifications by the beneficiary of the value distinguish between self- and other-oriented values.[42]

A historically influential approach identifies three spheres of value: truth, goodness, and beauty.[f] For example, the neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband characterizes them as the highest goals of consciousness, with thought aiming at truth, will aiming at goodness, and emotion aiming at beauty. A similar view, proposed by the Chinese philosopher Zhang Dainian, says that the value of truth belongs to knowledge, the value of goodness belongs to behavior, and the value of beauty belongs to art.[44] This three-fold distinction also plays a central role in the philosophies of Franz Brentano and Jürgen Habermas.[45] Other suggested types of values include objective, subjective, potential, actual, contingent, necessary, inherent, and constitutive values.[46]

## Ethics and axiology

[edit]

Main article: Value (ethics and social sciences)

Intuitively, theories of value must be important to ethics. A number of useful distinctions have been made by philosophers in the treatment of value.

### Pragmatism and contributory goodness

[edit]

Further information: Pragmatic ethics

John Dewey (1859–1952) in his book Theory of Valuation,[47] says goodness is the outcome of ethic valuation and a continuous balancing of "ends in view". An end in view is said to be an objective potentially adopted, which may be refined or rejected based on its consistency with other objectives or as a means to objectives already held.

Dewey's empiricist approach evinces absolute intrinsic value denial; i.e. not accepting intrinsic value as an inherent or enduring property of things. Instead, Dewey sees the appearance of intrinsic value as an illusory product of our continuous valuative activity as purposive beings. In addition to denying categorically that there is anything like intrinsic value, Dewey held the same position with regard to moral values: for Dewey, moral values are also based on a learning process, and are never intrinsic or absolute.

Another contribution of pragmatism to value theory is the idea of contributory goods with a contributory conditionality. These have the same qualities as the good thing, but need some emergent property of a whole state-of-affairs in order to be good. For example, salt is food on its own, but is far better as part of a prepared meal. In other words, such goods are only "good" when certain conditions are met. This is in contrast to other goods, which may be considered "good" in a wider variety of situations.

### Kant: hypothetical and categorical goods

[edit]

The thinking of Immanuel Kant greatly influenced moral philosophy. He thought of moral value as a unique and universally identifiable property, as an absolute value rather than a relative value. He showed that many practical goods are good only in states-of-affairs described by a sentence containing an "if" clause, e.g., in the sentence, "Sunshine is only good if you do not live in the desert." Further, the "if" clause often described the category in which the judgment was made (art, science, etc.). Kant described these as "hypothetical goods", and tried to find a "categorical" good that would operate across all categories of judgment without depending on an "if-then" clause.

An influential result of Kant's search was the idea of a good will being the only intrinsic good. Moreover, Kant saw a good will as acting in accordance with a moral command, the categorical imperative, "Act according to those maxims that you could will to be universal law",[48] which should not be confused with the ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule, e.g. Matthew 7:12. Whereas the golden rule states that "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself", Kant asks us to analyze whether an act can be performed simultaneously by everyone without exception. For example, murder cannot be performed simultaneously by everyone, one set of people would have to live and the other die. That disparity is an exception. The act cannot be performed without exception, therefore it fails the categorical imperative. Contrast this with the golden rule which is subjective to the individual. Following the logic of the golden rule, if I wanted someone to kill me, then it would be acceptable for me to kill others, because I would be doing to others what I would want done to me. Kant's categorical imperative aims to avoid this flaw. From this, and a few other axioms, Kant developed a moral system that would apply to any "praiseworthy person".[49]

Kantian philosophers believe that any general definition of goodness must define goods that are categorical in the sense that Kant intended.

## Sociology

[edit]

Main article: Value (ethics and social sciences)

In sociology, value theory is concerned with personal values which are popularly held by a community, and how those values might change under particular conditions. Different groups of people may hold or prioritize different kinds of values influencing social behavior.

Methods of study range from questionnaire surveys to participant observation. Values can be socially attributed. What the community perceives as of paramount significance to them denotes or decipher their social attributes.

## Economics

[edit]

Main article: Theory of value (economics)

Economic analysis emphasizes goods sought in a market and tends to use the consumer's choices as evidence (revealed preference) that various products are of economic value. In this view, religious or political struggle over what "goods" are available in the marketplace is inevitable, and consensus on some core questions about body and society and ecosystems affected by the transaction, are outside the market's goods so long as they are unowned.[50]

However, some natural goods seem to also be moral goods. For example, those things that are owned by a person may be said to be natural goods, but over which a particular individual(s) may have moral claims. So it is necessary to make another distinction: between moral and non-moral goods. A non-moral good is something that is desirable for someone or other; despite the name to the contrary, it may include moral goods. A moral good is anything which an actor is considered to be morally obligated to strive toward.

When discussing non-moral goods, one may make a useful distinction between inherently serviced and material goods in the marketplace (or its exchange value), versus perceived intrinsic and experiential goods to the buyer. A strict service economy model takes pains to distinguish between the goods and service guarantees to the market, and that of the service and experience to the consumer.

Sometimes, moral and natural goods can conflict. The value of natural "goods" is challenged by such issues as addiction[why?]. The issue of addiction also brings up the distinction between economic and moral goods, where an economic good is whatever stimulates economic growth. For instance, some claim that cigarettes are a "good" in the economic sense, as their production can employ tobacco growers and doctors who treat lung cancer. Many people would agree that cigarette smoking is not morally "good", nor naturally "good," but still recognize that it is economically good, which means, it has exchange value, even though it may have a negative public good or even be bad for a person's body (not the same as "bad for the person" necessarily – consider the issue of suicide).

In ecological economics, value theory is separated into two types: donor-type value and receiver-type value. Ecological economists tend to believe that 'real wealth' needs a donor-determined value as a measure of what things were needed to make an item or generate a service.[51] An example of receiver-type value is 'market value', or 'willingness to pay', the principal method of accounting used in neo-classical economics. In contrast, both Marx's labour theory of value and the emergy concept are conceived as donor-type value. Emergy theorists believe that this conception of value has relevance to all of philosophy, economics, sociology and psychology as well as environmental science.

Silvio Gesell denied value theory in economics. He thought that value theory is useless and prevents economics from becoming science and that a currency administration guided by value theory is doomed to sterility and inactivity.[52]

## See also

[edit]

* Aesthetics
* Anthropological theories of value
* Axiological ethics
* Baden School
* Cultural Institutions Studies
* Graded absolutism
* Illegalism
* Intuitionism
* Labor theory of value
* Law of value
* Logic
* Morality
* Friedrich Nietzsche
* Normative science
* Practical philosophy
* Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality
* Rationality
* Rationality and power
* Social contract
* Summum bonum
* Thick concept
* Ultimate importance
* Value-added theory
* Value engineering

## References

[edit]

### Notes

[edit]

1. ^ Another view sees axiology as the wider field and restricts value theory to questions concerning the nature of value.[12]
2. ^ The term value has other meanings as well, such as the value of a mathematical variable expressing the information or quantity that this variable carries.[14] Value theory is only interested in the evaluative sense of the term about being good or bad in a certain respect.[15]
3. ^ In the social sciences, some works rely on the concept of relational value to understand the value of the relationship between humans and nature. According to this view, relational value is a unique type of value that is neither intrinsic nor instrumental.[31]
4. ^ Prudential value is a closely related concept signifying what is good for a person.[35]
5. ^ Consequentialism is a theory in normative ethics. It says that an act is right if it leads to the best consequences.[38]
6. ^ In scholastic philosophy, they are known as transcendentals and considered fundamental aspects of being.[43]

### Citations

[edit]

1. ^ David Detmer (1988). Freedom as a Value: A Critique of the Ethical Theory of Jean-Paul Sartre. Open Court Publishing. ISBN 978-0812690835.
2. ^ H. T. Odum, Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision-making, 1996.
3. ^

* Smith & Thomas 1998, Lead section
* Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2
* Schroeder 2021, Lead section

4. ^

* Bahm 1993, pp. 1, 4–6
* Li 2013, pp. 67–68

5. ^

* Hiles 2008, pp. 52–53
* Li 2013, pp. 67–68
* Bahm 1993, pp. 4–5

6. ^

* Schroeder 2021, Lead section
* Orsi 2015, p. 6–7
* Bahm 1993, p. 4
* Cowan 2020, pp. 4

7. ^

* Steinert 2023, p. 1
* Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2
* Bahm 1993, pp. 4–5

8. ^

* Schroeder 2021, Lead section
* Orsi 2015, p. 6–7
* Hurka 2006, p. 357

9. ^

* Taliaferro 2010, p. 24
* Arneson 2009, pp. 69–70

10. ^

* Grünberg 2000, pp. 11–12
* Hart 1971, p. 29

11. ^

* Schroeder 2021, Lead section
* Orsi 2015, p. 6–7

12. ^ Grenz, Guretzki & Nordling 2010, p. 18
13. ^ Grünberg 2000, pp. 11–12
14. ^ HarperCollins 2022
15. ^ Schroeder 2021, § 1. Basic Questions
16. ^

* Orsi 2015, p. 1
* Rescher 1969, p. 1

17. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 2–3
* Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 3

18. ^

* Schroeder 2021, § 1.2 Good, Better, Bad, § 2.3 Incommensurability/Incomparability
* Orsi 2015, pp. 122–123
* Tappolet 2015, p. 82

19. ^

* Orsi 2015, p. 8–9
* Schroeder 2021, § 3. Relation to the Deontic

20. ^ Hurka 2006, pp. 357–358
21. ^

* Orsi 2015, p. 8–9
* Schroeder 2021, § 3. Relation to the Deontic
* Hurka 2006, pp. 357–358

22. ^

* Li 2013, p. 70
* Schroeder 2021, § 1.1 Varieties of Goodness
* Orsi 2015, p. 22–23
* Rescher 1969, pp. 13–14, 18

23. ^

* Hurka 2006a, pp. 719–720
* Schroeder 2021, § 2.1 Intrinsic Value
* Rønnow-Rasmussen 2015, pp. 29–30
* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, Lead section

24. ^

* Hurka 2006a, pp. 719–720
* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 6. What Is Extrinsic Value?

25. ^

* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 2. What Is Intrinsic Value?
* Rønnow-Rasmussen 2015, pp. 30–31

26. ^

* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 1. What Has Intrinsic Value?
* Schroeder 2021, § 2.1 Intrinsic Value

27. ^

* Schellekens 2010, p. 38
* Vilkka 2021, p. 32

28. ^

* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 6. What Is Extrinsic Value?
* Zimmerman 2001, p. 253

29. ^

* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 6. What Is Extrinsic Value?
* Zimmerman 2001, p. 252

30. ^

* Schroeder 2021, § 2.1 Intrinsic Value
* Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 3. Is There Such a Thing As Intrinsic Value At All?, § 6. What Is Extrinsic Value?
* Rønnow-Rasmussen 2015, pp. 29–30

31. ^

* Chan, Gould & Pascual 2018, pp. A1–A2
* Jax 2023, p. 59–60
* Gupta 2024, p. 11

32. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 45–46
* Schroeder 2021, § 1. Basic Questions

33. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 3–4
* Schroeder 2021, § 1. Basic Questions
* Zimmerman 2015, pp. 13–14

34. ^ Silverstein 2016, p. 227
35. ^ Tiberius 2015, p. 158
36. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 63–64
* Schroeder 2021, § 1. Basic Questions
* Rønnow-Rasmussen 2011, pp. 1–2

37. ^

* Schroeder 2021, § 1.1.1 Good Simpliciter and Good For
* Orsi 2015, pp. 63–65

38. ^

* Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead section
* Haines, Lead section
* Hooker 2023, § 1. Utilitarianism

39. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 73–74
* Schroeder 2021, § 3.3 Agent-Relative Value?
* Cullity 2015, pp. 96–97

40. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 45–46, 61
* Schroeder 2021, § 1.1.2 Attributive Good

41. ^ Rescher 1969, pp. 13–14
42. ^

* Rescher 1969, pp. 15–16, 18
* Pradhan 2024, p. 142
* Hartman 2011, p. 306

43. ^ De Haan 2020, p. 302
44. ^

* Li 2013, pp. 80–81
* Ollig 1998, Lead section
* Martin 2016, pp. 3–5, 42–43

45. ^

* Martin 2016, pp. 4–5
* Kriegel 2018, pp. 96–97, 149, 253, 288

46. ^

* Orsi 2015, pp. 44
* Bahm 1993, p. 60–63
* Schroeder 2021, § 2.1.1 What is Intrinsic Value?
* Rønnow-Rasmussen 2015, pp. 39–40

47. ^ Dewey, J (1939). Theory of Valuation. University of Chicago. ISBN 978-0226575940.
48. ^ Immanuel Kant & Gary Banham (Authors) plus other contributors (1787–2007). The Critique of Pure Reason. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0230013384. `{{cite book}}`: `|author=` has generic name (help)
49. ^ Kant, Immanuel. Groundlaying toward the Metaphysics of Morals.
50. ^ Debreu, G (1972). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. Cowles Foundation - Yale University. ISBN 978-0300015591.
51. ^ H. T. Odum, Environmental Accounting: Emergy and environmental decision-making, 1996.
52. ^ S. Gesell (1958). The Natural Economic Order, Part III, Chapter 3.

### Sources

[edit]

* Arneson, Pat (2009). "Axiology". In Littlejohn, Stephen W.; Foss, Karen A. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7.
* Bahm, Archie J. (1993). Axiology: The Science of Values. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-5183-519-9.
* Chan, Kai MA; Gould, Rachelle K; Pascual, Unai (2018). "Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what's the fuss about?". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 35. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003. hdl:10810/47635.
* Cowan, Steven B. (2020). "Introduction". In Cowan, Steven B. (ed.). Problems in Value Theory: An Introduction to Contemporary Debates. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-14740-9.
* Cullity, Garrett (2015). "Neutral and Relative Value". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* De Haan, Daniel D. (2020). "Beauty and Aesthetic Perception in Thomas Aquinas". In Ramos, Daniel D. De Haan; Beauty and Aesthetic Perception in Thomas Aquinas (ed.). Beauty and the Good: Recovering the Classical Tradition from Plato to Duns Scotus. CUA Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-3353-6.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
* Grenz, Stanley J.; Guretzki, David; Nordling, Cherith Fee (2010). Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-6707-3.
* Grünberg, Ludwig (2000). The Mystery of Values: Studies in Axiology. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-0670-6.
* Gupta, Abhik (2024). Many Layers of Ecocentrism: Revering Life, Revering the Earth. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-040-03034-9.
* Haines, William. "Consequentialism and Utilitarianism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
* HarperCollins (2022). "Value". The American Heritage Dictionary entry. HarperCollins. Retrieved 28 August 2024.
* Hart, Samuel L. (1971). "Axiology - Theory of Values". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 32 (1). doi:10.2307/2105883.
* Hartman, Robert S. (2011). The Structure of Value: Foundations of Scientific Axiology. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-7252-3067-5.
* Hiles, David R. (2008). "Axiology". In Given, Lisa M. (ed.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4522-6589-6.
* Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (2015). "Introduction to Value Theory". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* Hooker, Brad (2023). "Rule Consequentialism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on February 1, 2024. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
* Hurka, Thomas (2006). "13. Value Theory". In Copp, David (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514779-7.
* Hurka, Thomas (2006a). "Intrinsic Value". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4 (2 ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-866072-1.
* Jax, Kurt (2023). Conservation Concepts: Rethinking Human–Nature Relationships. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-99354-7.
* Kriegel, Uriah (2018). Brentano's Philosophical System: Mind, Being, Value. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-879148-5.
* Li, Deshun (2013). Value Theory: A Research into Subjectivity. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-25617-2.
* Martin, John Levi (2016). "The Birth of the True, The Good, and The Beautiful: Toward an Investigation of the Structures of Social Thought". Current Perspectives in Social Theory. 35: 3–56. doi:10.1108/S0278-120420160000035001.
* Ollig, Hans-Ludwig (1998). "Neo-Kantianism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-DC055-1.
* Orsi, Francesco (2015). Value Theory. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4725-2408-9.
* Pradhan, Ramesh Chandra (2024). Ethics, Self and the World: Exploring Metaphysical Foundations in Moral Philosophy. Springer Nature Singapore. ISBN 978-981-97-3496-2.
* Rescher, Nicholas (1969). Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-500751-8.
* Rønnow-Rasmussen, Toni (2011). Personal Value. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960378-7.
* Rønnow-Rasmussen, Toni (2015). "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* Schellekens, Elisabeth (2010). Aesthetics and Morality. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-2298-8.
* Schroeder, Mark (2021). "Value Theory". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 26 August 2024.
* Silverstein, Matthew (2016). "Teleology and Normativity". In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.). Oxford Studies in Metaethics 11. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-878464-7.
* Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2023). "Consequentialism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on June 18, 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
* Smith, Barry; Thomas, Alan (1998). "Axiology". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L120-1.
* Steinert, Steffen (2023). Interdisciplinary Value Theory. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-10733-7.
* Taliaferro, Charles (2010). A Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4411-8504-4.
* Tappolet, Christine (2015). "Values and Emotions". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* Tiberius, Valerie (2015). "Prudential Value". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* Vilkka, Leena (2021). The Intrinsic Value of Nature. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-49510-4.
* Zimmerman, Michael J. (2001). The Nature of Intrinsic Value. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1263-4.
* Zimmerman, Michael J. (2015). "Value and Normativity". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
* Zimmerman, Michael J.; Bradley, Ben (2019). "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 29 August 2024.

## Further reading

[edit]

* Nicholas Rescher. 2010. Axiogenesis: An Essay in Metaphysical Optimalism. Lexington Books.

* v
* t
* e

Good and evil

* Good
* Evil

Theories|

* Greater good
* Summum bonum
* Lesser of two evils
* Necessary evil
* See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
* Immorality
* Morality
* Value theory
* Altruism
* Radical evil

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template