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...