  The account of value is non-naturalistic in the sense that value is argued to be irreducible to natural features, even though “grounded” in them. (1980a, §5; Sylvan later committed to the supervenience of intrinsic value on naturalistic features, Sylvan and Bennett 1994, 143). It is Meinongian in a number of respects—most obviously, drawing freely on Routley (1980), cf. esp. §8.11, values are features had by items but, like properties, they do not exist (1980a, 153ff). Sylvan’s moral epistemology also draws heavily on Meinong’s account of “emotional presentation” (see Lamb 2018, §VIII): “the valued object may be emotionally presented and its value thus recognised, without its value simply amounting to its emotional presentation” (Routley and Routley 1983, 453). The account is articulated at length in Sylvan (1986). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sylvan’s semantic analysis of value (cf. Routley and Routley 1983) makes use of non-classical, relevant logic in its formal analysis. (Weber 2017a also draws on Sylvan’s work in non-classical logic to develop a “new version” of the Last Man Example—the “Ultramodal Last Man”—with a view to avoiding an alleged dilemma besetting the original Last Man Example, “renewing a role for non-standard logics in value theory”.)