An interesting new paper forthcoming in Phil Studies, 'The pen, the dress, and the coat: a confusion in goodness' by Miles Tucker, argues against the (now widely accepted) Conditionalist thesis that intrinsic value and final value are separable.
Consider, e.g., the pen Abraham Lincoln used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Intuitively, it would seem to have final (non-instrumental) value in virtue of its extrinsic properties (i.e., its historical significance / relation to emancipation). But, interestingly, Tucker argues that standard accounts of final value cannot accommodate this verdict.
According to Fitting Attitudes: "A thing has final value only if it is fitting to care about it for
its own sake." (p.6) But, Tucker argues, it's fitting to care about Lincoln's pen only because it's fitting to care about something else, namely emancipation. So, he suggests, it's not really fitting to care about Lincoln's pen "for it's own sake", so it lacks final value on this account.
I think what this really shows is that the fitting attitudes account of final value has been misformulated. What matters is not the explanation why it's fitting to care about the object, but rather the kind of care that is thereby warranted. The distinction between final and instrumental value mirrors that between final (non-instrumental) and instrumental desires. So we should say that an object has final value when it is fitting to desire (or otherwise regard) it non-instrumentally.
This plainly solves the problem. So long as it's fitting to have some non-instrumental pro-attitude towards Lincoln's pen (e.g. to non-instrumentally desire its continued existence), then it has final value on this account. It doesn't matter what the explanation of this fittingness fact is. That will merely serve as an explanation of why it has final value as it does. Such an explanation might very well appeal to the values of other things to which the pen is related, such as the history of emancipation. The important thing is just that, as it turns out, the pen really does warrant our non-instrumental regard.