Everything we interact with as human beings has an ‘ordinate’ and intrinsic value. A worth beyond all predicates. This fact, that objects do not merely receive, but also merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or contempt, clearly indicates a doctrine the Chinese refer to as Tao; ‘the greatest thing, reality, nature and the way the universe goes on and things everlastingly emerge’, the doctrine of objective value. This appreciation of objective value as a reality, and not just an idea, has been echoed throughout history by different schools of thought, cultures and even religions. Shelly described it by comparing the sensibility of man to a lyre with the power of ‘internal adjustment’ that ‘accommodates its chords to the motions of whatever strikes them’ as he described how we interact with objects. Trahene further emphasized that every object has its ‘due esteem’ and Aristotle went on to tell us that education’s main aim is to teach us what, already, ought to be liked and disliked, a sentiment shared by Plato, long before him, in nearly the same exact words. By this reality, certain attitudes are true or false according to how the universe works, and our approvals and disapprovals are recognitions of a quality which demands a certain response from us, recognitions of objective value. In line with this, our emotional states are therefore alogical and cannot be judgements in themselves; they are all viewed as either reasonable or unreasonable in their conformity to reason and objective value. In Lewis’ lecture on ‘Men without chests’ he gives the example that we call children delightful and old men venerable as recognition of their objective value and not simply a record of our emotional perception. He further tells us how he does not enjoy the company of children. However, regardless of his own preferences he acknowledges, just as a man may recognize that he is colour blind or mute, that this is not caused by a defect in children but rather himself. An individual’s refusal to acknowledge objective value is absolutely non-rational as it therefore forces that individual to hold the stance that nothing has any value. When one tourist, in the story of Coleridge at the waterfall, called the cataract ‘sublime’, he was not only talking of how his emotion of humility was ordinate to the reality, just as to say that ‘a shoe fits’ is to speak also of the feet. The emotion considered by itself is thus neither reasonable or unreasonable but rather does not even rise to the dignity of error. In this view, also the world of facts, without a trace of value is non-rational. Therefore when an individual cannot provide grounds for identification of objective value he lacks the rationality of thought necessary to acknowledge the dignity of the person, and by extension his own. Just as no amount of justification of virtue will make a man virtuous, virtues of human dignity cannot be coherently justified without any appeal to objective value.