Claim. In Unification Axiology, value is defined as the quality of an object that satisfies the desire of a subject, and value becomes actual only when the subject recognizes and appraises that quality.
Elaboration. Lee breaks with the view (which he attributes to mainstream axiology) that value is too elusive to define directly and can only be approached through phenomenological analysis. His operational definition is sharp (What Are Values?): value = quality-of-object × satisfaction-of-subject-desire × subject-recognition.
This is a relational ontology of value. The flower has potential beauty; until a perceiving subject appraises it as beautiful, that beauty is latent, not actual. Value is something that belongs to the object, but it requires a give-and-take action with a subject to be realized. This positions Unification Axiology between two failed extremes Lee will later critique: pure objectivism (value resides entirely in the object, independent of perceivers) and pure subjectivism/relativism (value is merely subjective preference, as in pragmatism or analytical philosophy).
The definition has methodological consequences for the rest of the chapter. Because value requires subject-desire, analyzing values requires analyzing desire, which Lee says existing economic and ethical theories have neglected — “a tree without roots.” This sets up the move to ground axiology in the principle-of-creation: desire itself is God-given, part of original human nature, oriented toward the purpose-of-creation. So defining value relationally rather than objectively allows Lee to anchor value-claims in theological anthropology while still preserving objective standards (the absolute standard will come from God’s love and truth, in section V).
The definition deliberately covers both material and spiritual values, with Unification Axiology focusing on the spiritual values of truth, goodness, and beauty (the Sungsang values).
See also. actual-value-requires-subject-and-object-requisites, essence-of-value-purpose-plus-harmony, desire-is-original-not-fallen