Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fact–value distinction is also closely related to the moralistic fallacy, an invalid inference of factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises. For example, an invalid inference "Because everybody ought to be equal, there are no innate genetic differences between people" is an instance of the moralistic fallacy.
Thick concepts thus seem to occupy a 'middle position' between (thin) descriptive concepts and (thin) evaluative concepts. Descriptive concepts such as water, gold, length and mass are commonly believed to pick out features of the world rather than provide reasons for action, whereas evaluative concepts such as right and good are commonly believed to provide reasons for action rather than ...
Normative statements of such a type make claims about how institutions should or ought to be designed, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. [8] Claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or ...
Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality. [1] It contrasts with prescriptive or normative ethics , which is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act, and with meta-ethics , which is the study of what ethical terms and theories actually refer to.
only make descriptive claims about the material found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and; make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
A claim is a substantive statement about a thing, such as an idea, event, individual, or belief. Its truth or falsity is open to debate. Arguments or beliefs may be offered in support, and criticisms and challenges of affirming contentions may be offered in rebuttal. [1] Philosophical claims are often categorized as either conceptual or empirical.
Intuitionists rely on intuitions to assess evaluative claims. In this context, an intuition is an immediate apprehension or understanding of a self-evident claim, meaning that its truth can be assessed without inferring it from another observation. [106] Value theorists often rely on thought experiments to gain this type of understanding ...
The terms "real good" and "right desire" cannot be defined apart from each other, and thus their definitions would contain some degree of circularity, but the stated self-evident truth indicates a meaning particular to the ideas sought to be understood, and it is (the moral cognitivist might claim) impossible to think the opposite without a ...