The part played by value in the modification of open into attractive possibilities
Moral value as it was understood by Nicolai Hartmann and by Max Scheler belongs uniquely to volitions or willings, to dispositions to will and to persons as beings capable of willing. Moreover, as understood in this paper as well as by Hartmann, Scheler, and Husserl, every volition necessarily involves if not actual valuings then reference to retained valuings and potential valuings as well as to cognitive mental phenomena. As used here, the terms "volition' and "willing' denote mental traits, such as lived experiences and habits insofar as they either do or can occur actively. A trait of a mind or "monad" can have moral value — in contrast to utility, for example — only insofar as it is or can be or could have been engaged in and so performed by the person or ego to whose mind the trait belongs. The classification of lived experiences as voluntary or not voluntary cuts across the three-fold classification of mental processes as cognitive, affective, or conative. This seems to be the most appropriate way to distinguish the voluntary from the involuntary. Voluntary mental phenomena are characterized by the engagement of the ego in some lived experience occurring in the flux of its lived experiences.
Full citation [Harvard style]:
Jordan, R.W. (1997)., The part played by value in the modification of open into attractive possibilities, in L. Embree (ed.), Phenomenology of values and valuing, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 81-94.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.