Fact-value distinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.
The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result.
Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.(March 2008)

The fact-value distinction is a concept used to distinguish between arguments which can be claimed through reason alone, and those where rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion. In another formulation, it is the distinction between what is (can be discovered by science, philosophy or reason) and what ought to be (a judgment which can be agreed upon by consensus). The terms positive and normative represent another manner of expressing this, as do the terms descriptive and prescriptive, respectively. Positive statements make the implicit claim to facts (e.g. water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom), whereas normative statements make a claim to values or to norms (e.g. water ought to be protected from environmental pollution).

Contents

[edit] David Hume's skepticism

The fact-value distinction emerged in philosophy during the Enlightenment; in particular, David Hume (1711-1776) argued that human beings are unable to ground normative arguments in positive arguments, that is, to derive 'ought' from 'is'. Hume was a skeptic, and although he was a complex and dedicated philosopher, he shared a political viewpoint with previous Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). Specifically, Hume, at least to some extent, argued that religious and national hostilities that divided European society were based on unfounded beliefs; in effect, he argued they were not found in nature, but a creation of a particular time and place, and thus unworthy of mortal conflict. Thus Hume is often cited as being the philosopher who finally debunked the idea of nature as a standard for political existence. For instance, without Hume, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) 'return' to nature would have not been so revolutionary, inventive and fascinating.

[edit] The naturalistic fallacy

The fact-value distinction is closely related to the naturalistic fallacy, a topic that is still open to debate in ethical and moral philosophy. G. E. Moore believed it was essential to all ethical thinking[citation needed]. However, more recent contemporary philosophers like Phillipa Foot have called into question the validity of such assumptions. Others, such as Ruth Anna Putnam, have argued even the most ‘scientific’ of disciplines are affected by the ‘values’ of the men and women who research and practice the vocation[1]. Nevertheless, the difference between the naturalistic fallacy and the fact-value distinction is derived from the manner in which the fact-value distinction, and not the strict naturalistic fallacy, has been used by modern social science to articulate new fields of study and create academic disciplines.

[edit] Nietzsche's table of values

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra said that a table of values hangs above every great people. Nietzsche asserts that what made a people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to see those values come to pass."[2] The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche[3] There are "a thousand and one goals," says Zarathustra, one no more worthy than the next. This idea became a core premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absorbed it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical endeavor, as well as their political understanding.

[edit] The fact-value problem

The problem of the unexamined acceptance of the fact-value distinction is two-fold. Firstly, the idea itself is not self-sufficient. The concept required great genius to arise, and there were particular political and historical conditions which contributed to its emergence. Therefore, its truth is of question. Secondly, the blind use of the concept distorts the very tradition whence it came. Thus the origin of 'facts' and 'values', or philosophy, is obscured from view. An example is found when Plato is examined by modern philosophers.

In a contemporary study by the American philosophy Professor Daryl Rice, it is claimed that Plato did not understand the fact-value distinction. To make his point he declares that water has two hydrogen atoms for every one oxygen atom. Rice calls this a fact. He says a chemistry professor who stated that this was unjust would be making a 'value' statement, an absurd normative argument since the 'fact' is a fact[4] But is it? Moreover, Rice says that Plato thought values were facts, and cites Plato's strict censorship of music and poetry in The Republic.

Yet upon closer inspection, one might argue the supposed 'fact' of H2O is a product of a 'value'; the scientific or philosophical 'value' that originated in Ancient Greece before Socrates and was made possible for human beings through the life and work of Thales, Socrates, Plato et al. The 'value' -- to look at water in a scientific way, to discover its molecular composition as opposed to drinking it or using it as an aspect of a religious ritual such as baptism -- is the philosophic 'value'. In fact, one might argue Plato understood the fact-value distinction and rejected it[5]. Plato tried to define philosophy as a search for truth, a search for what is; this 'value' precedes any 'fact'[6]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Putnam, Ruth Anna.“Perceiving Facts and Values." Philosophy 73, 1998. This article as well as her earlier article- "Creating Facts and Values." Philosophy 60, 1985 examines how the choice of investigations scientists make may be based upon their unexamined subjectivity which undermines the objectivity of their hypothesis and findings. See also Smart J.C. "Ruth Anna Putnam and the Fact-Value Distinction" Philosophy 74, 1999.
  2. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Book Two "On the Virtuous": "You who are virtuous still want to be paid! Do you want rewards for virtue, and heaven for earth, and the eternal for your today? And now you are angry with me because I teach that there is no reward and paymaster? And verily, I do not even teach that virtue is its own reward."
  3. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Book Four "On Old and New Tablets": "To redeem what is past in man and to receate all "it was" until the will says, "Thus I willed it! Thus I shall will it!"- this I called redemption and this alone I taught them to call redemption"."
  4. ^ Rice, Daryl H. Guide to Plato's Republic. p.22. Oxford University Press, 1997.
  5. ^ Plato. The Republic of Plato. "For the most part, each one spends his time in philosophy, but when his time comes, he drudges in politics and rules for the city's sake, not as though he were doing a thing that was fine, but one that is necessary. And thus always educating other like men and leaving them behind in their place as guardians of the city, they go off to the Isles of the Blessed and dwell". Socrates 540b.
  6. ^ Plato. The Republic of Plato. "Therefore the man who is really a lover of learning must from youth on strive as intensely as possible for every kind of truth." Socrates, 485d.

[edit] Bibliography

  • Hume, David. Treatise of Human Nature. First published 1739-1740.
  • Hume, David. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.
  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by R.J. Hollingdale. New York: Penguin, 1969.
  • Putnam, Ruth Anna. “Creating Facts and Values." Philosophy 60, 1985
  • Putnam, Ruth Anna.“Perceiving Facts and Values." Philosophy 73, 1998
  • Rice, Daryl H. Guide to Plato's Republic. Oxford University Press, 1997.