II

But we must return to a placing of our problem in this context. My

theme is that a judgment of value is simply a case of a practical

judgment, a judgment about the doing of something. This conflicts with

the assumption that it is a judgment about a particular kind of

existence independent of action, concerning which the main problem is

whether it is subjective or objective. It conflicts with every

tendency to make the determination of the right or wrong course of

action (whether in morals, technology, or scientific inquiry)

dependent upon an independent determination of some ghostly things

called value-objects--whether their ghostly character is attributed to

their existing in some transcendental eternal realm or in some realm

called states of mind. It asserts that value-objects mean simply

objects as judged to possess a certain _force_ within a situation

temporally developing toward a determinate result. To _find_ a thing

good is, I repeat, to attribute or impute nothing to it. It is just to

do something to it. But to consider _whether_ it is good and how good

it is, is to ask how it, _as if acted upon_, will operate in promoting

a course of action.

Hence the great contrast which may exist between a good or an

immediate experience and an evaluated or judged good. The rain may be

most uncomfortable (just _be_ it, as a man is more than five feet

tall) and yet be "good" for growing crops--that is, favor or promote

their movement in a given direction. This does not mean that two

contrasting judgments of value are passed. It means that _no_ judgment

has yet taken place. If, however, I am moved to pass a value-judgment

I should probably say that in spite of the disagreeableness of getting

wet, the shower is a good thing. I am now judging it as a _means_ in

two contrasting situations, as a means with respect to two ends. I

compare my discomfort as a _consequence_ of the rain with the

prospective crops as another consequence, and say "let the latter

consequence be." I identify myself as agent with it, rather than with

the immediate discomfort of the wetting. It is quite true that in this

case I cannot do anything about it; my identification is, so to speak,

sentimental rather than practical so far as stopping the rain or

growing the crops is concerned. But in effect it is an assertion that

one would not on account of the discomfort of the rain stop it; that

one would, if one could, encourage its continuance. Go it, rain, one

says.

The specific intervention of action is obvious enough in plenty of

other cases. It occurs to me that this agreeable "food" which I am

eating isn't a food for me; it brings on indigestion. It functions no

longer as an _immediate_ good; as something to be accepted. If I

continue eating, it will be after I have deliberated. I have

considered it as a means to two conflicting possible consequences, the

present enjoyment of eating and the later state of health. One or

other is possible, not both--though of course I may "solve" the

problem by persuading myself that in this instance they are congruent.

The value-object now means thing judged to be a means of procuring

this or that end. As prizing, esteeming, holding dear denote ways of

acting, so valuing denotes a passing judgment upon such acts with

reference to their connection with other acts, or with respect to the

continuum of behavior in which they fall. Valuation means change of

mode of behavior from direct acceptance and welcoming to doubting and

looking into--acts which involve postponement of direct (or so-called

overt) action and which imply a future act having a different

_meaning_ from that just now occurring--for even if one decides to

continue in the previous act its meaning-content is different when it

is chosen after reflective examination.

A practical judgment has been defined as a judgment of what to do, or

what is to be done: a judgment respecting the future termination of an

incomplete and in so far indeterminate situation. To say that

judgments of value fall within this field is to say two things: one,

that the judgment of value is never complete in itself, but always in

behalf of determining what is to be done; the other, that judgments of

value (as distinct from the direct experience of something as good)

imply that value is not anything previously given, but is something to

be given by future action, itself conditioned upon (varying with) the

judgment. This statement may appear to contradict the recent assertion

that a value-object for knowledge means one investigated as a means to

competing ends. For such a means it already is; the lobster _will_

give me present enjoyment and future indigestion _if_ I eat it. But as

long as I judge, _value_ is indeterminate. The question is not what

the thing will do--I may be quite clear about that: it is whether to

perform the act which will actualize its potentiality. What will I

have the situation _become_ as between alternatives? And that means

what force shall the thing as means be given? Shall I take it as means

to present enjoyment, or as a (negative) condition of future health?

When its status in these respects is determined, its value is

determined; judgment ceases, action goes on.

Practical judgments do not therefore primarily concern themselves with

the value of _objects_; but with the course of action demanded to

carry an incomplete situation to its fulfilment. The adequate control

of such judgments may, however, be facilitated by judgment of the

worth of objects which enter as ends and means into the action

contemplated. For example, my primary (and ultimate) judgment has to

do, say, with buying a suit of clothes: whether to buy and, if so,

what? The question is of better and worse with respect to alternative

courses of action, not with respect to various objects. But the

judgment will be a judgment (and not a chance reaction) in the degree

in which it takes for its intervening subject-matter the value-status

of various objects. What are the prices of given suits? What are their

styles in respect to current fashion? How do their patterns compare?

What about their durability? How about their respective adaptability

to the chief wearing use I have in mind? Relative, or comparative,

durability, cheapness, suitability, style, aesthetic attractiveness

constitute value traits. They are traits of objects not _per se_, but

_as entering into a possible and foreseen completing of the

situation_. Their value is their force in precisely this function. The

decision of better and worse is the determination of their respective

capacities and intensities _in this regard_. Apart from their status

in this office, they have no traits of value for knowledge. A

determination of better value as found in some one suit is equivalent

to (has the force of) a decision as to what it is better to do. It

provided the lacking stimulus so that action occurs, or passes from

its indeterminate-indecisive-state into decision.

Reference to the terms "subjective" and "objective" will, perhaps,

raise a cloud of ambiguities. But for this very reason it may be worth

while to point out the ambiguous nature of the term objective as

applied to valuations. Objective may be identified, quite erroneously,

with qualities existing outside of and independently of the situation

in which a decision as to a future course of action has to be reached.

Or, objective may denote the status of qualities of an object _in

respect_ to the situation to be completed through judgment.

Independently of the situation requiring practical judgment, clothes

already have a given price, durability, pattern, etc. These traits are

not affected by the judgment. They exist; they are given. But as given

they are _not_ determinate values. They are not _objects_ of

valuation; they are _data for_ a valuation. We may have to take pains

to discover that these given qualities are, but their discovery is in

order that there may be a subsequent judgment of value. Were they

already definite values, they would not be estimated; they would be

stimuli to direct response. If a man had already decided that

cheapness constituted value, he would simply take the cheapest suit

offered. What he judges is the value of cheapness, and this depends

upon its weight or importance in the situation requiring action, as

compared with durability, style, adaptability, etc. Discovery of

shoddy would not affect the _de facto_ durability of the goods, but it

would affect the value of cheapness--that is, _the weight assigned

that trait in influencing judgment_--which it would not do, if

cheapness already had a definite value. A value, in short, means a

_consideration_, and a consideration does not mean an existence

merely, but an existence having a claim upon judgment. Value judged is

not existential quality noted, but is the influence attached by

judgment to a given existential quality in determining judgment.

The conclusion is not that value is subjective, but that it is

practical. The situation in which judgment of value is required is not

mental, much less fanciful. I can but think that much of the recent

discussion of the objectivity of value and of value-judgments rests

upon a false psychological theory. It rests upon giving certain terms

meanings that flow from an introspective psychology which accepts a

realm of purely private states of consciousness, private not in a

social sense (a sense implying courtesy or mayhap secrecy toward

others), but existential independence and separateness. To refer value

to choice or desire, for example, is in that case to say that value is

subjectively conditioned. Quite otherwise, if we have steered clear

from such a psychology. Choice, decision, means primarily a certain

act, a piece of behavior on the part of a particular thing. That a

horse chooses to eat hay means only that it eats hay; that the man

chooses to steal means (at least) that he tries to steal. This trial

may come, however, _after_ an intervening act of reflection. It then

has a certain intellectual or cognitive quality. But it may mean

simply the bare fact of an action which is retrospectively called a

choice: as a man, in spite of all temptation to belong to another

nation, chooses to be born an Englishman, which, if it has any sense

at all, signifies a choice to continue in a line adopted without

choice. Taken in this latter sense (in which case, terms like choice

and desire refer to ways of behavior), their use is only a

specification of the general doctrine that all valuation has to do

with the determination of a course of action. Choice, preference, is

originally only a bias in a given direction, a bias which is no more

subjective or psychical than is the fact that a ball thrown is

swerving in a particular direction rather than in some other curve. It

is just a name for the differential character of the action. But let

continuance in a certain line of action become questionable, let, that

is to say, it be regarded as a means to a future consequence, which

consequence has alternatives, and then choice gets a logical or

intellectual sense; a _mental_ status if the term "mental" is reserved

for acts having this intellectualized quality. Choice still means the

fixing of a course of action; it means at least a _set_ to be released

as soon as physically possible. Otherwise man has not chosen, but has

quieted himself into a belief that he has chosen in order to relieve

himself of the strain of suspense.

Exactly the same analysis applies to desire. Diverse anticipated ends

may provoke divided and competing present reactions; the organism may

be torn between different courses, each interfering with the

completion of the other. This intra-organic pulling and hauling, this

strife of active tendencies, is a genuine phenomenon. The pull in a

given direction measures the immediate hold of an anticipated

termination or end upon us, as compared with that of some other. If

one asked after the mechanism of the valuing process, I have no doubt

that the answer would be in terms of desires thus conceived. But

unless everything relating to the activity of a highly organized being

is to be denominated subjective, I see no ground for calling it

subjective. So far as I can make out, the emphasis upon a

psychological treatment of value and valuation in a subjective sense

is but a highly awkward and negative way of maintaining a positive

truth: that value and valuation fall within the universe of _action_:

that as welcoming, accepting, is an act, so valuation is a present act

determining an act _to be_ done, a present act taking place because

the future act is uncertain and incomplete.

It does follow from this fact that valuation is not simply a

_recognition_ of the force or efficiency of a means with respect to

continuing a process. For unless there is _question_ about its

continuation, about its termination, valuation will not occur. And

there is no question save where activity is hesitant in direction

because of conflict within it. Metaphorically we may say that rain is

good to lay the dust, identifying force or efficiency with value. I do

not believe that valuations occur and values are brought into being

save in a continuing situation where things have potency for carrying

forward processes. There is a close relationship between prevailing,

valiancy, valency, and value. But the term "value" is not a mere

reduplication of the term "efficiency": it adds something. When we are

moving toward a result and at the same time are stimulated to move

toward something else which is incompatible with it (as in the case of

the lobster as a cause of both enjoyment and indigestion), a thing has

a dual potency. Not until the end has been established is the value of

the lobster settled, although there need be no doubt about its

efficiencies. As was pointed out earlier, the practical judgment

determines means and end at the same time. How then can value be

given, as efficiency is given, until the end is chosen? The rain is

(metaphorically) valuable for laying dust. Whether it is valuable for

us to have the dust laid--and if so, how valuable--we shall never know

until some activity of our own which is a factor in dust-laying comes

into conflict with an incompatible activity. Its value is its force,

indeed, but it is its force in moving us to one end _rather_ than to

another. Not every potency, in other words, but potency with the

specific qualification of falling within judgment about future action,

means value or valuable thing. Consequently there is no value save in

situations where desires and the need of deliberation in order to

choose are found, and yet this fact gives no excuse for regarding

desire and deliberation and decision as subjective phenomena.

To use an Irish bull, as long as a man _knows_ what he desires there

is no desire; there is movement or endeavor in a given direction.

Desire is desires, and simultaneous desires are incompatible; they

mark, as we have noted, competing activities, movements in directions,

which cannot both be extended. Reflection is a process of finding out

what we want, what, as we say, we _really_ want, and this means the

formation of new desire, a new direction of action. In this process,

things _get_ values--something they did not possess before, although

they had their efficiencies.

At whatever risk of shock, this doctrine should be exposed in all its

nakedness. To judge value is to engage in instituting a determinate

value where none is given. It is not necessary that antecedently given

values should be the data of the valuation; and where they are given

data they are only terms in the determination of a not yet existing

value. When a man is ill and after deliberation concludes that it be

well to see a doctor, the doctor doubtless exists antecedently. But

it is not the doctor who is judged to be the good of the situation,

but the _seeing_ of the doctor: a thing which, by description, exists

only because of an act dependent upon a judgment. Nor is the health

the man antecedently possessed (or which somebody has) the thing which

he judges to be a value; the thing judged to be a value is the

restoring of health--something by description not yet existing. The

results flowing from his past health will doubtless influence him in

reaching his judgment that it will be a good to have restored health,

but they do not constitute the good which forms his subject-matter and

object of his judgment. He may judge that they _were_ good without

judging that they are now good, for to be judged now good means to be

judged to be the object of a course of action still to be undertaken.

And to _judge_ that they were good (as distinct from merely recalling

certain benefits which accrued from health) is to judge that _if_ the

situation had required a reflective determination of a course of

action one would have judged health an existence to be attained or

preserved by action. There are dialectic difficulties which may be

raised about judgments of this sort. For they imply the seeming

paradox of a judgment whose proper subject-matter is its own

determinate formation. But nothing is gained by obscuring the fact

that such is the nature of the practical judgment: it is a judgment of

what and how to judge--of the weight to be assigned to various

factors in the determination of judgment. It would be interesting to

inquire into the question whether this peculiarity may not throw light

upon the nature of "consciousness," but into that field we cannot now

go.