If the foundation of values is not intrinsic, what is it? values arise from alternatives... specifically the alternative of life and death - without that, there would be no need for values... 'life' is the yardstick, so to speak, on whether something is considered good or bad, or an action considered right or wrong... 'life', in other words, makes the concept of value both possible and necessary... this means that values have basis in facts - the actual relationship to an organism's life - and thus provides for a firm basis for ethics which are objectively true... a value, as Rand pointed out, is 'that which one acts to gain and/or keep'... and while values benefit, there is a difference between a value and a benefit... not all benefits result from the beneficiary's actions - certain salutary events can and do occur without any effort on the part of the beneficiary... other benefits, however, require effort on the part of the one being benefited - thus a value is what one ACTS to attain... values, however, are not self-evident - a person cannot spot a value AS A VALUE in the same manner as, say, can be spotted a tree as a tree, a chair as a chair, or a blade of grass as a blade of grass... what may look like a cool and refreshing drink, for instance , might be very toxic - and a fierce looking animal may be perfectly harmless and good to have around... in other words, what makes something of value may depend on facts about it that are not immediately or necessarily readily apparent, making it crucial to understanding what it is that would make or render something of value...

Why is 'good-in-itself' not true? to begin with, why not just repose the question and ask, 'what is it? what does this alleged value refer to?'... when this is done, it becomes noticed that most often what is considered as intrinsic value is expressed by what it is not - it is NONrelational, it is value APART from from a thing's consequences, it is INDEPENDENT of other aims... but negative depictions are not sufficient - to claim a value is different from other types is only to emphasize part of the issue... there is also needed an explanation of what the VALUE is - what it consists of - an explanation of how the term 'intrinsic value' qualifies under the more general term, value... without this, there are no grounds for accepting its existance... the so-called 'evidence' boils down invariably to claims that intrinsic value is self evident... but the absence of objective evidence for it, alongside with the completely subjective basis for claiming or asserting it [eg - their feelings or intuitions], leaves no grounds for crediting its existence... advocates insist intrinsic value can be spotted, but provide no satisfactory account of how - and thus no means of verifying the claims... this failure, then, exposes the doctrine's latent subjectivism, and its therefore lack of viability... denying intrinsic value may seem harsh, especially if one agrees that some of the always considered ones - beauty, freedom, life, and so on - are quite wonderful indeed... however, denying that these are intrinsic values does not deny that these are valuable... nor does it preclude their being especially valuable, carrying significant ramifications for other values or for the propriety of various actions...

What is 'intrinsic value', or is there really such a thing? the first thing to remember is that there are two strains to the notion - the 'good-in-itself' conception, and the 'sought-for-its-own-sake' conception... the good-in-itself view considers that intrinsic values are packed within the allegedly valuable thing, and that this is independently of and thus unaffected by the existance or condition of all other things, persons, and interests... the sought-for-its-own-sake view considers that intrinsic values are what are sought NOT as means to or constituent of any other ends... in other words, the alleged intrinsic value turns on a person's reasons for seeking something, rather than on the nature of the thing itself... the problem is that the discovery that something is sought for its own sake says only something about persons' motivations in pursuing those things - and says nothing about the propriety of the questing or the actual value of the things sought... in other words, the sought-for-its-own-sake version - representing persons' atitudes towards their ends - cannot deliver objective value... this is because when intrinsic value is characterized solely in terms of the reasons for which something is sought, the embrace of intrinsic value collapses into subjectivism... the good-in-itself version, however, is even less defensible...

As a spiritual visualizer, it should be clear that an artist, then, should show purposefulness - which means productiveness, either directly thru the metaphorical examplings, or indirectly thru passages of effects... this last would mean the showing of progress thru the various stages of developness of whatever was being shown... using metaphoric relatings, the moralness of being productive can be made visual - not propagandizingly so, but as a natural course of events AS SEEN IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE RENDERING... this is emphasized because it cannot be stated too much that purposefulness involves, as Rand pointed out, 'remaking the earth in the image of one's values'... further, that this in turn implies the recognition that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTRINSIC VALUES, that the earth simply is, and as such simply is material to be used...

Spirituality means recognising that life simply 'is', a normal aspect of existance within the universe, and that whatever meaning is applied to it - is PERSONAL, one one gives to oneself, and directs as such, as one's own 'captain of soul'... creating, as such, one's own destiny... one way to help in doing this is to understand what aesthetics itself is all about - the science of beauty - involving order, proportion, balance, harmony, and grace... this way, one can learn to discern those aspects of the utilitarian which lead one to appeal to them and desire them, even if only as visual aspects of reality which remind one of interrelationships with the world at large... that is, one could say, the purpose of it being within the crafts - and why those crafts themselves are used within the created realms of the renderer, the artist... this also involves understanding that there is a spirituality of productiveness, of the utilitarian aspect of survivalship for being human... productiveness is a form of practicalizing ethics, with the spirituality involved in the qualitification of that productiveness - especially from the personal standpoint of the individual... productive ability is a moral value - and, like all values, a course of virtue is required in order to gain and/or keep it... this means recognising that all "work is an act of creating, and comes from the same source - from an inviolate capacity to see thru one's own eyes", Rand wrote... a businessman/woman, fully as much as an artist, or artisan, is an exponent of spirituality... moreover, since there is the key factor of integration involved, an artist or artisan, fully as much as a businessman/woman, has to be involved in the material of the universe... one could well say that Art, like any legitimate area of endeavor, has a life-sustaining purpose - and that its creation demands objective, reality-oriented thought, with then embodiment of that thought in a physical medium... this further means that there is no such sense of opposing the 'spiritual' versus the 'material', that no rational area may be pitted against another - that ALL proper arenas or fields require thought AND action - that ALL exemplify the integration of mind and body, as is the naturalness of the universe... remember - there are no contradictions within the universe, and if one is perceived, then there is a need to check the premises, for one or more of those are in error...