Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A value judgment (or normative judgement) is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something or someone, or of the usefulness of something or someone, based on a comparison or other relativity. As a generalization, a value judgment can refer to a judgment based upon a particular set of values or on a particular value system. A related ...
Statements of value (normative or prescriptive statements), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology. This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter.
Value-judgments are not analytic, and are not verifiable as 'matters of fact.' According to Ayer when we argue about whether a value-judgment is right or wrong, we are really arguing about the empirical facts on which a value-judgment is based, or about the logical interpretation of empirical facts.
This is a normative statement, because it reflects value judgments; this specific statement makes the judgment that the benefits of the policy outweigh its costs. [ 2 ] Some earlier technical problems posed in welfare economics have had major impacts on work in applied fields such as resource allocation , public policy , social indicators, and ...
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
Illusory truth effect, the tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity. These are specific cases of truthiness. Rhyme as reason effect, where rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.
Logical value – Value indicating the relation of a proposition to truth; Multi-valued logic – Propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values; Münchhausen trilemma – Thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth; Pluralist theories of truth
Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta (often simply dicta , or obiter ) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision.