Having said that, do we give value to things (we invent their values) and for that reason they seem valuable to us, or do we recognize in them objective value and for that reason they seem valuable to us? If we accept the first thesis (we give value to things, we invent their values, and for that reason they seem valuable to us), then subjectivism or relativism is inevitable: the subjective or arbitrary preferences of each person or group would never be common to humanity, because about tastes there is nothing written. But if we accept the second (we recognize in them an objective value and for that reason they do not seem valuable), then perhaps we can get to put all human beings in agreement about what is valuable and what is not, what is more and what is which is less valuable.
Values have a subject, that is, a content: to affirm, for example, the freedom that consists in giving each one what corresponds to him would be to confuse the content of freedom with that of justice. That materiality is polar, that is, it presents its positive face (for example, love) and its negative face (hatred). On the other hand, being is not polar. The negative being is nothingness, which can not be intuited as something.
The reality is not static, but dynamic, the great geniuses of humanity are the first in that discovery, but also each of the simple people with their daily lives can embody them creatively. That is why value is also everything that contributes to the subjective development, to the realization and improvement of the human being, giving meaning to their personal and collective life, and allowing the conquest of their identity. Values invigorate our lives, encourage us to try to reach them if they are good, and to fight against them if they are bad.