The importance of an object is generally determined by its qualitative value.
Value is a highly subjective word, and what makes it subjective is something that has brought me this perspective.

The value of an object can be instrumental or intrinsic.
A high instrumental value means that the object is very useful, i.e, can be used as an instrument.
I’ll take an example of a tree. It is as useful to you as it is to me. It has instrumental value. A glass of milk has instrumental value too, but not for lactose intolerant people, which is why lactose intolerance is viewed as a problem, as a suffering, because it makes obvious sense to extract milk’s instrumental value.

A high intrinsic value, however, depends on the judge.
How many times has it happened that a strand of thread hanging loose from your T-Shirt or Pyjamas has been ripped off by your impulsive hands?
But a similar thread when tied on your wrist suddenly carries the enormous weight of ethics, culture, and moral values.
What I intend to point out is that it lies in the veritable subjectivity of the intrinsic value that Value, in general, becomes subjective.

But how is intrinsic value determined? How does the judge know what score must be awarded?
Consciousness.
I think that it is consciousness and the experience associated with it that credits intrinsic value to an object.
Consciousness, not specifically human.
Why does a pet decide to snuggle between the legs of its master and not a random person?
Because the decisions the pet makes are based on its experiences with the master. And the pet credits much more intrinsic value to the master than a total stranger.

Imagine a tree being cut down.
Take a moment and really imagine someone axing down a tree.
Would you feel bad about it?
If yes, why?
Would you feel worse if it was a tree that grew in your garden, whose branches cradled you sometime in your childhood?
Think about it. There are two reasons for why we feel bad when a tree is cut down.
The first is the loss of instrumental value, the loss of something potentially valuable, and that brings concern.
The second is intrinsic value shattering to worthless pieces of dust, and that brings true grief, the true loss, that humans dread.

It is quite fascinating that the power of abstract thoughts trumps the power of concrete consciousness.
Thoughts have made Robert Lynd correctly describe the human being as the master on this partially civilised planet.
But Love has much more to do with intrinsic value than thoughts, and it lies in the ability of mankind to love things that forms the base for its fallacy as a master.
The infamous war between Logic and Love battling for dominance over personality starts bubbling its lava.
When sane Logic questions Love for its stupid, irrational and whimsical decisions, they are defensively justified by crediting them to the fulfilment of a healthy intrinsic value.
I believe that it is this intrinsic value crossing a threshold that makes something (or someone for that matter) lovable.
It is then, that the Whys of Logic become ever so muffled, ever so incoherent, ever so obsolete.
It is then, that subjectivity denies explanations, instrumental value is inexplicably chucked out, and unconditional love takes throne.