 If ‘that’ clauses introduce bearers of intrinsic value, what do these clauses refer to in ascriptions of value? It seems intuitively implausible to holds that thoughts are intrinsically good (bad). Thoughts represent how things might be or not. A representation might have value but its value depends, at least in part, on what it represents. Hence, thoughts seem not to be bearers of intrinsic value. Neither facts nor states of affairs represent how things might be or not. Hence, both are candidates for the role of being bearers of intrinsic value.