Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Fact–value distinction

The fact–value distinction is a foundational concept in philosophy and ethics positing a categorical separation between empirical statements describing what is the case—verifiable through observation, reason, or evidence—and normative statements prescribing what ought to be the case, which involve evaluations, moral judgments, or preferences irreducible to mere description.^[1] This divide underscores that factual propositions, being testable for truth or falsity, cannot logically entail value-laden prescriptions without smuggling in unstated evaluative assumptions, thereby preventing illicit derivations of ethical imperatives from descriptive premises.^[2] First systematically highlighted by David Hume in his 1739 A Treatise of Human Nature, the distinction manifests as the "is-ought" problem, where Hume observed that moral treatises often transition abruptly from indicative facts to imperative conclusions without justifying the inferential leap.^[3] The principle gained prominence in 20th-century social sciences through Max Weber's advocacy for Wertfreiheit (value-freedom) in scholarly inquiry, arguing that scientific analysis must confine itself to causal explanations of social phenomena while acknowledging that ultimate value commitments—such as selecting research topics or interpreting significance—remain extra-scientific and subjectively oriented.^[4] This methodological stance aimed to preserve objectivity amid ideological pressures, influencing fields like economics and sociology by demanding explicit segregation of descriptive analysis from prescriptive advocacy.^[5] Notable implications include its role in critiquing ideological overreach, such as when empirical data on policy outcomes (e.g., economic growth rates) is conflated with moral endorsements of those policies, fostering clearer causal reasoning untainted by normative sleight-of-hand. Controversies persist, with critics like Hilary Putnam contending the dichotomy collapses under pragmatic scrutiny, as factual inquiries inherently embed evaluative standards for coherence and relevance, though defenders maintain the separation as essential to avoid conflating verifiable reality with subjective preference.^[2]^[6] In practice, the distinction promotes rigorous discourse by compelling explicit acknowledgment of value premises, countering tendencies in biased institutional contexts to masquerade partisan oughts as neutral is-statements.^[7]

Core Concept and Origins

The Is-Ought Distinction in Hume

David Hume identified the is-ought distinction in Book III, Part I, Section I of A Treatise of Human Nature, first published in 1739–1740. There, he critiqued moral philosophers for transitioning without explanation from descriptive propositions about what is—such as observations of human behavior or the existence of a deity—to normative claims about what ought to be, noting that this shift introduces "some new relation or affirmation" inexplicable as a deduction from empirical facts alone. Hume emphasized that reason operates solely on relations among ideas derived from impressions, incapable of generating the motivational force required for ought-statements, which instead arise from passions or sentiments.^[3] This observation underscored Hume's broader empiricist skepticism toward rationalist derivations of morality, prevalent in pre-Enlightenment thought but challenged by British empiricists like John Locke, whose Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) limited knowledge to sensory experience. Hume argued that no chain of empirical observations or logical inferences could bridge to prescriptive conclusions without an unstated premise rooted in human sentiment, as pure reason lacks intrinsic normative authority and cannot motivate action independently of desire. For instance, recognizing a natural inclination toward benevolence in human nature describes what is, but prescribing it as a duty requires an additional affective endorsement, such as moral approbation, to confer obligation.^[3] In the post-Lockean empiricist tradition, Hume's distinction targeted "vulgar systems of morality" that presumed reason could directly yield ethical imperatives, subverting claims to derive virtues or vices solely from factual premises like divine order or self-interest. He maintained that moral distinctions emerge not from intellectual discernment but from sentiments of approval or disapproval, observable in how vice and virtue influence passions and actions rather than being inertly demonstrated like mathematical truths.^[8] This positioned the is-ought gap as a foundational limit on deriving normativity from description, requiring any moral system to acknowledge the causal role of non-rational elements in human judgment.^[3]

Early Philosophical Skepticism Toward Bridging Fact and Value

Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) extended Humean skepticism by delineating a strict separation between pure theoretical reason, which yields knowledge of factual necessities through a priori synthetic judgments, and practical reason, which generates moral imperatives independently via the categorical imperative.^[9] Kant argued that empirical facts discerned by theoretical reason—such as causal laws in nature—cannot ground ethical oughts, as morality requires universal, non-contingent commands derived from reason's autonomy rather than observational data or hypothetical imperatives conditioned by desires.^[9] This bifurcation reinforced the fact-value gap by positing that conflating the two realms would reduce ethics to heteronomous inclinations, undermining deontology's foundation in rational duty unbound by empirical derivation. In the 19th century, Auguste Comte's positivism echoed this skepticism through his Course of Positive Philosophy (1830–1842), which classified knowledge into stages culminating in the positive, where verifiable facts and laws supplant theological or metaphysical speculations about values. Comte prioritized scientific observation of phenomena's invariant relations, dismissing normative claims unverifiable by sensory experience as relics of prior intellectual phases, thus limiting philosophy to descriptive laws without prescriptive bridging to ethics or politics beyond altruism's empirical utility. Similarly, John Stuart Mill, in A System of Logic (1843), distinguished the inductive methods of science, which ascertain factual uniformities, from the deductive "art of life" that applies them prescriptively, acknowledging that utilitarian derivations from happiness-promoting facts presuppose an unproven axiomatic preference for pleasure over pain. Mill's proof of utility in Utilitarianism (1861) relies on psychological and inductive evidence tying actions to aggregate happiness, yet concedes the foundational "desirability" of happiness as a non-derivable intuition, highlighting the persistent logical barrier against fully reducing values to facts.^[10] This pre-20th-century reinforcement stemmed from first-principles scrutiny of inference: chains of factual causation, observable in phenomena like physical motions or social regularities, describe sequences without embedding normative compulsion, as no descriptive premise logically entails a prescriptive conclusion absent an imported value judgment. Logical analysis of such derivations, rather than appeals to moral sentiment, revealed the gap's inescapability, with empirical instances—such as deriving "one should eat" solely from "eating sustains life"—failing to generate obligation without smuggling in unstated ends like self-preservation's worth.^[9] These thinkers thus upheld skepticism by demanding explicit justification for any purported bridge, prioritizing verifiable premises over speculative syntheses.

Key Formulations and Fallacies

Naturalistic Fallacy and Moore's Critique

The naturalistic fallacy, as formalized by G.E. Moore in his 1903 work Principia Ethica, refers to the error of attempting to define the ethical predicate "good" in terms of natural or descriptive properties, such as pleasure, evolutionary fitness, or other empirical predicates.^[11] Moore contended that "good" denotes a simple, non-natural property that cannot be analyzed or reduced to any complex of natural attributes without committing a fallacy of equivocation, as such definitions conflate a unique ethical concept with factual descriptions.^[12] This critique targeted ethical naturalism prevalent in utilitarianism and evolutionary ethics, where proponents like Herbert Spencer equated moral goodness with survival-promoting traits, arguing that such identifications fail to capture the intrinsic nature of goodness itself.^[11] Central to Moore's argument is the open-question test, which demonstrates the irreducibility of "good" by showing that proposed naturalistic definitions leave ethical questions meaningfully open. For instance, even if one identifies "good" with pleasure, the query "Is pleasure good?" remains substantively debatable rather than tautological, indicating that the terms are not synonymous; a closed question would arise only if the definition held analytically, as in "Is pleasure pleasure?"^[12] This test applies to any naturalistic or even non-natural metaphysical reduction, underscoring that ethical properties supervene on but are not identical to descriptive facts, thereby preserving the fact-value distinction against reductive scientism.^[13] Moore's formulation achieved significant influence by curbing tendencies in early 20th-century ethics to subordinate moral inquiry to empirical sciences, prompting metaethical scrutiny and elevating non-naturalist intuitionism as a bulwark against positivist overreach.^[12] It redirected philosophical attention to the indefinability of ethical primitives, fostering developments in analytic ethics that prioritized conceptual analysis over derivation from facts. However, critics have argued that Moore's reliance on intuitive apprehension of "good" undervalues empirical contributions to ethics, potentially insulating moral intuitions from falsification by scientific evidence and rendering them vulnerable to subjective variability rather than robust grounding.^[14]

Moralistic Fallacy and Prescriptive Errors

The moralistic fallacy, as articulated by R. M. Hare, constitutes the erroneous inference from normative prescriptions to descriptive facts, inverting the naturalistic fallacy by supposing that what ought to be thereby is. In his 1952 work The Language of Morals, Hare developed this critique within his theory of ethical prescriptivism, positing that moral statements primarily function as universal imperatives—commands applicable to all rational agents in similar circumstances—rather than assertions of empirical reality.^[15] Such prescriptions, Hare maintained, guide action without entailing verifiable states of affairs; for example, declaring that "justice demands equal distribution of resources" does not logically establish that resources are in fact equally distributed, absent supporting evidence from observation or measurement.^[16] This separation underscores prescriptivism's emphasis on the non-cognitive, action-oriented nature of moral language, where values lack descriptive force unless corroborated by factual inquiry. Hare illustrated the fallacy's perils through ideological overreach, as in Marxist prescriptions positing proletarian inevitability: the imperative that workers "ought" to seize control of production does not render bourgeois dominance illusory or transient without empirical demonstration of material conditions favoring such outcomes. Similarly, in religious or utopian contexts, enjoining that "humanity ought to live in harmony" fails to prove innate sociability overrides competitive behaviors documented in historical and anthropological records, such as intertribal conflicts predating modern states by millennia. These errors arise when prescriptions are reified as facts, bypassing validation through testable hypotheses.^[17] Hare's framework thereby fortified empirical disciplines against prescriptive encroachment, insisting that scientific claims—such as evolutionary theories of altruism or economic models of scarcity—must derive from data, not moral edicts, thereby preserving methodological integrity amid 20th-century ideological pressures like Soviet Lysenkoism, which subordinated biology to egalitarian oughts in the 1930s–1940s.^[18] This safeguard promoted causal realism in inquiry, prioritizing observable mechanisms over normative fiat. Nonetheless, detractors argue that Hare's rigid dichotomy risks abetting an amoral positivism, akin to logical positivism's earlier severance of facts from values, wherein empirical pursuits evade normative scrutiny and foster ethical indifference; for instance, value-neutral analyses in social sciences may overlook how factual descriptions inherently involve selections guided by implicit oughts, as critiqued in post-positivist turns since the 1960s.^[19]^[20] Such concerns highlight prescriptivism's potential to insulate facts excessively, complicating integrations where values inform empirical priorities without illicit derivation.^[21]

Nietzsche's Revaluation of Values

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his 1887 treatise On the Genealogy of Morality, advanced a genealogical critique that treated moral values as emergent from historical power struggles and psychological drives rather than as derivations from objective facts. He contended that the dichotomy of "good" versus "evil" originated in the conflict between "master morality"—which prized strength, nobility, and self-affirmation—and "slave morality," which inverted these through ressentiment, the reactive envy of the powerless against the strong. This inversion, Nietzsche argued, fabricated values by reinterpreting noble traits as vices and weakness as virtue, thus conflating interpretive fictions with purported factual essences of human conduct.^[22] Central to this revaluation was Nietzsche's diagnosis of how slave morality obscured causal realities of value formation, projecting a metaphysical "beyond" to rationalize its egalitarian resentments while stifling vital instincts. He proposed a "transvaluation of all values" (Umwertung aller Werte), envisioning a creative overthrow of decadent norms to cultivate life-enhancing ideals rooted in the will to power, independent of empirical or rational deduction from "is" to "ought." This project, presaged in works like Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885) and elaborated genealogically, positioned values as tools for human overcoming rather than timeless truths.^[23] Nietzsche's framework succeeded in demystifying the non-factual, contingent origins of dominant ethics, revealing how cultural and class dynamics shape evaluative judgments often mistaken for objective derivations. However, it drew objections for fostering relativism, wherein values lack stable anchors in human psychology or biology, thereby complicating pursuits of verifiable ethical claims grounded in empirical patterns of flourishing.^[24]

Applications Across Disciplines

Max Weber articulated the principle of Wertfreiheit, or value-freedom, in social science as a methodological imperative to distinguish factual causal explanations from evaluative prescriptions, enabling objective analysis amid subjective human actions. In his seminal 1904 essay "'Objectivity' in Social Science and Social Policy," published in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Weber contended that social sciences cannot derive normative conclusions from empirical observations, as facts alone do not dictate values; instead, they provide interpretive tools for understanding cultural phenomena without endorsing them.^[25] This framework posits that while scientists' values inevitably select research topics, the analysis itself must remain neutral, focusing on verifiable causal regularities rather than moral imperatives.^[26] Central to Weber's approach is Verstehen, an interpretive method for grasping the subjective meanings actors attach to their behavior, which facilitates causal explanations of social action without conflating description with judgment. Defined in his methodological writings, including the 1913 essay "Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology," Verstehen involves empathically reconstructing intentions and motivations to explain why actions occur, treating sociology as a discipline that "interprets the meaning of social action and thereby gives a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and of its effects."^[27] By adhering to value-freedom, social inquiry avoids ideological distortion, allowing empirical data—such as statistical correlations or historical sequences—to stand independent of the researcher's ethical preferences, as exemplified in Weber's own comparative studies of economic systems.^[28] In the context of modern pluralism, Weber's distinction accommodates a "polytheism of values," where competing ethical orientations—evident in the fragmentation of worldviews post-Enlightenment—coexist without a singular authoritative hierarchy, thus safeguarding scientific neutrality against partisan advocacy. Elaborated in his 1917 lecture "Science as a Vocation," this perspective recognizes that ultimate value commitments lie outside empirical validation, yet value-freedom permits rigorous historical and sociological analysis, such as tracing bureaucratic rationalization's causal impacts, without prescribing societal ideals.^[26] Such methodological rigor has underpinned empirical successes in fields like economic history, where Weber demonstrated causal links between cultural factors and institutional outcomes, maintaining analytical detachment to enhance explanatory power.^[29]

Tensions Between Religion and Empirical Science

The trial of Galileo Galilei in 1633 exemplifies early tensions, where empirical observations clashed with religious prescriptions derived from scriptural interpretations. Galileo's telescopic evidence supporting heliocentrism, including the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, indicated that Earth orbits the Sun, contradicting the geocentric model endorsed by the Catholic Church as aligned with biblical passages like Joshua 10:12-13.^[30] ^[31] The Inquisition convicted him of heresy on June 22, 1633, sentencing him to house arrest for asserting these facts against doctrinal authority, which prioritized prescriptive "oughts" from scripture over verifiable data.^[32] This resolution favored empirical verification, establishing a precedent for science's methodological insistence on falsifiable evidence over value-based assertions.^[31] In modern contexts, debates over biological evolution highlight persistent conflicts, as religious commitments to literal creation narratives prescribe historical "is" claims incompatible with genetic, fossil, and comparative anatomy evidence accumulated since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. For instance, young-Earth creationism posits a 6,000-10,000-year timeline based on genealogies in Genesis, yet radiometric dating of rocks yields ages exceeding 4 billion years, and transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx (dated to 150 million years ago) demonstrate gradual change.^[33] Courts, such as in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, ruled that intelligent design—a value-laden alternative invoking divine intervention—lacks empirical testability and constitutes an impermissible derivation of facts from oughts, akin to the moralistic fallacy.^[33] These rulings underscore that values cannot legitimately override empirical consensus without introducing non-falsifiable premises. Science's adherence to fact-driven inquiry has yielded causal advancements, such as predictive models in physics and biology unencumbered by prescriptive dogma, enabling technologies from vaccines to space exploration grounded in reproducible evidence.^[31] Critics from religious perspectives argue that the fact-value distinction erroneously reduces transcendent values—such as moral purpose or ultimate meaning derived from divine sources—to illusory constructs, potentially eroding domains where religion addresses non-empirical "oughts" like ethical imperatives.^[34] However, when religious doctrines assert empirically falsifiable claims (e.g., geocentricism or recent creation), they blur the distinction by deriving "is" statements from value premises, inviting scrutiny under scientific standards without resolving the underlying prescriptive basis.^[33] This dynamic reinforces causal realism in empirical domains while leaving value judgments to non-scientific evaluation, though tensions persist where institutional authority seeks to enforce scriptural oughts as factual truths.^[32]

Implications for Economics and Public Policy

The fact–value distinction manifests in economics through the delineation of positive analysis, which examines "what is" in economic behavior and outcomes, from normative analysis, which evaluates "what ought to be" in terms of welfare or justice. Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) exemplified this by factually describing self-interested market exchanges leading to societal wealth creation, while his earlier The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) explored the ethical sentiments guiding human conduct separately from such mechanisms. This separation was rigorously articulated by Lionel Robbins in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1932), positing economics as a positive science of scarce means relative to given ends, deliberately excluding judgments on the desirability of those ends to maintain scientific objectivity. In public policy formulation, the distinction requires isolating empirical predictions of policy impacts—such as effects on output, employment, or resource allocation—from value-based selections of objectives like equity or aggregate growth. Violations occur when normative preferences masquerade as factual inevitabilities, notably in welfare economics, where concepts like Pareto optimality describe efficiency conditions empirically but interpersonal utility comparisons to justify redistribution introduce untestable ethical assumptions about equal moral worth.^[35] Robbins critiqued such blends as unscientific, arguing they obscure causal mechanisms; for example, claims that progressive taxation inherently boosts efficiency via reduced inequality often rely on normative priors rather than verifiable dynamics of incentives and behavior. This conflation risks policies that prioritize value-driven goals over evidenced outcomes, leading to inefficient resource use. Causal empirical studies reveal trade-offs when equality values override positive efficiency analyses, countering narratives that equate redistribution with optimal growth. Minimum wage hikes, framed normatively as equity imperatives, have been shown to reduce low-skill employment; a 2019 meta-analysis of 102 studies found disemployment effects in 79% of cases, with elasticities averaging -0.17 for teens. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected in 2021 that a federal $15 minimum wage would eliminate 1.4 million jobs while lifting 900,000 out of poverty, netting a factual loss in employment despite value gains in wages for some. High marginal tax rates for equality, such as those exceeding 70% post-World War II in the U.S., correlate with behavioral responses diminishing revenue and investment; econometric models estimate optimal rates around 60-70% for growth, beyond which deadweight losses from distorted incentives prevail. These patterns, drawn from panel data and natural experiments rather than correlational claims, highlight how policy advocacy—often institutionally skewed toward egalitarian norms—downplays such facts, perpetuating suboptimal interventions absent rigorous positive scrutiny.

Criticisms from Alternative Ethical Frameworks

Functionalist and Pragmatist Challenges

John Dewey's pragmatism, developed prominently in works such as The Quest for Certainty (1929), contested the rigid fact-value distinction by positing that values emerge through reflective inquiry into the practical consequences of human actions within adaptive contexts.^[36] Dewey argued that ethical judgments are not detached prescriptions but hypotheses tested empirically against outcomes, integrating factual assessment of means with evaluative ends; for instance, a practice's "goodness" derives from its verifiable efficacy in resolving problems, rendering the is-ought gap artificial rather than insurmountable.^[36] This instrumentalist view, rooted in Dewey's broader rejection of dualisms between knowledge and action, holds that moral deliberation mirrors scientific method, where values gain warrant from causal sequences observed in experience, as elaborated in his 1920 Reconstruction in Philosophy.^[37] In mid-20th-century functionalist sociology, exemplified by Robert K. Merton's Social Theory and Social Structure (1949), social norms and institutions were analyzed as mechanisms contributing to systemic stability, thereby linking descriptive facts about functional utility to implicit normative evaluations.^[38] Merton distinguished manifest functions (intended consequences) from latent ones (unintended), illustrating how norms, such as those enforcing conformity, factually sustain social cohesion by mitigating deviance and promoting equilibrium, as seen in his strain theory where adaptive pressures reveal norms' empirical roles in equilibrium.^[39] This approach challenged strict separation by suggesting that factual analyses of societal "needs" for persistence inherently evaluate structures as valuable insofar as they fulfill adaptive roles, blurring lines in anthropological and sociological explanations of cultural persistence.^[40] Critics contend that these functionalist and pragmatist frameworks, while advancing practical ethics through consequence-based assessment, falter in providing a logical bridge from empirical utility to categorical oughts, often yielding context-relative valuations prone to relativism.^[41] Dewey's emphasis on adaptive success, for example, prioritizes instrumental efficacy over deontic principles, potentially justifying any norm that empirically stabilizes a given society without universal criteria.^[7] Similarly, Merton's functional paradigm risks post-hoc rationalization of existent structures as normatively requisite, overlooking dysfunctions or alternative causal pathways that undermine claims of inherent value derivation, thus preserving a descriptive-prescriptive divide absent deeper axiomatic grounding.^[42]

Moral Realism and Factual Basis of Values

Moral realism maintains that moral facts exist objectively and independently of human attitudes or conventions, rendering value judgments capable of being true or false in a manner analogous to factual claims about the empirical world. This position posits that such facts are not merely descriptive but prescriptive, guiding action through their inherent authority, and can be discerned through rational reflection and intuitive apprehension rather than solely empirical observation. Proponents argue that this framework undermines a rigid fact-value dichotomy by integrating moral truths into the fabric of reality, allowing values to possess a factual basis amenable to philosophical scrutiny.^[43] Russ Shafer-Landau, in his 2003 defense of moral realism, contends that moral properties are non-natural, sui generis entities that supervene on natural facts without being reducible to them, existing mind-independently and exerting normative force. These properties, he argues, are knowable a posteriori through intuition and reason, much like other abstract entities, and their irreducibility avoids both naturalist reductionism and subjectivist error. Shafer-Landau addresses epistemic challenges by invoking moral intuition as a reliable faculty, calibrated by coherence with reflective equilibrium and cross-cultural convergence on core prohibitions like gratuitous harm.^[44]^[43] In response to David Hume's is-ought distinction, moral realists propose that the apparent gap dissolves under a metaphysical framework where moral facts directly entail normative conclusions, as "ought" statements report objective relations grounded in these facts rather than deriving logically from purely descriptive premises alone. For instance, if human flourishing constitutes an objective good discoverable through realist ontology, then imperatives to promote it bridge descriptive realities (e.g., biological needs) to prescriptive demands without illicit inference, provided moral properties are intrinsically motivating or rationally compelling. This counters Humean skepticism by affirming that moral realism's commitment to objective prescriptivity permits values to reflect causal structures of well-being, such as those evident in sustained societal cooperation.^[45] Empirical insights from evolutionary psychology offer tentative support for moral realism by suggesting that innate moral intuitions—such as aversion to incest or fairness norms—align with adaptive facts promoting survival and reproduction, implying that values may track objective goods embedded in human nature rather than arbitrary preferences. Studies indicate universal patterns in moral cognition, like harm avoidance, emerging from evolutionary pressures, which realists interpret as evidence of sensitivity to mind-independent moral truths rather than mere illusion. However, this support faces the "queerness" objection, originally formulated by J.L. Mackie in 1977, which deems moral properties metaphysically odd: unlike natural facts, they are intrinsically prescriptive, demanding motivation from agents without causal efficacy in the physical world, rendering their existence ontologically extravagant and epistemically undetectable by standard scientific means. Shafer-Landau rebuts queerness by analogizing moral facts to other non-natural entities like logical truths, arguing their motivational force arises from rational recognition rather than brute causation, though critics persist in viewing this as an unsubstantiated posits.^[46]^[47]^[48]^[44]

Critiques Targeting Weber's Framework

Conservative critics of Max Weber's framework contend that its emphasis on value-freedom unduly confines social scientific inquiry to empirical facts, thereby neglecting the evaluative judgments essential for diagnosing societal pathologies and prescribing reforms.^[49] According to analyses in 2022, this restriction fosters a descriptive focus that avoids normative critique, limiting the discipline's capacity to assess whether social arrangements promote or undermine human flourishing, as conservatives prioritize hierarchical traditions and moral orders over neutral observation.^[49] Such objections, rooted in thinkers like Leo Strauss who rejected positivist separations as eroding classical standards of political judgment, argue that Weber's Wertfreiheit inadvertently promotes relativism by sidelining reasoned evaluations of better or worse regimes.^[50] Realist objections further highlight how Weber's schema overlooks the causal efficacy of values in shaping social outcomes, rendering explanations incomplete without integrating evaluative dimensions into causal analysis.^[49] For instance, values such as communal solidarity or cultural continuity exert tangible influences on institutional stability and policy efficacy, yet strict value-neutrality discourages scientists from probing these as more than mere subjective motives, thus impeding causal realism in favor of sanitized empiricism.^[49] Critics maintain that this approach enables technocratic errors in domains like public administration, where fact-driven policies—such as efficiency-maximizing reforms—disregard cultural goods like familial structures or national identity, leading to unintended erosions of social cohesion, as evidenced in mid-20th-century modernization efforts that prioritized economic metrics over evaluative assessments of tradition's role in resilience.^[51] While Weber's method effectively mitigates ideological bias by distinguishing verifiable causation from partisan advocacy, detractors from realist traditions counter that it severs facts from teleological ends inherent to human action, resulting in analyses that describe "what is" without illuminating "what ought to be pursued" for societal health.^[49] This balance acknowledges value-freedom's prophylactic value against dogmatism but underscores critiques that, absent evaluative integration, social science forfeits its diagnostic potency, particularly in conservative frameworks valuing substantive goods over procedural neutrality.^[49]

Contemporary Debates and Empirical Challenges

Ethical Naturalism and Scientific Determination of Values

Ethical naturalism posits that moral values can be derived from empirical facts about the natural world, particularly through scientific inquiry into human flourishing and conscious experience. In this view, ethical properties are reducible to natural properties amenable to scientific investigation, such as states of well-being measurable via neuroscience and psychology. Proponents argue that values are not irreducibly distinct from facts but represent optimized configurations of biological and cognitive processes, challenging the strict fact-value dichotomy by grounding ought-statements in is-statements supported by evidence.^[52] A prominent contemporary articulation appears in Sam Harris's 2010 book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, where he contends that science can identify moral truths by mapping peaks and valleys of well-being for conscious creatures. Harris defines well-being as a factual domain, quantifiable through metrics like health outcomes, cognitive function, and experiential quality, asserting that questions of right and wrong reduce to empirical inquiries about what promotes or diminishes such states across individuals and societies. He illustrates this with neuroscience, positing that brain imaging and behavioral data reveal how certain interventions—such as reducing chronic pain or enhancing social cohesion—correlate with heightened well-being, thereby providing objective grounds for value judgments.^[53]^[54] Empirical support draws from neuroimaging studies linking factual brain states to value-laden experiences, such as functional MRI scans showing activation in reward centers (e.g., ventral striatum) during positive moral or hedonic evaluations. For instance, research on moral decision-making identifies distinct neural patterns for utilitarian versus deontological judgments, suggesting that values emerge from evolved cognitive architectures rather than supernatural or non-natural sources. These findings imply that scientific progress in understanding consciousness—evidenced by reproducible correlations between neural activity and reported well-being—erodes the is-ought gap, as values track causally efficacious facts about human neurology and behavior.^[55]^[56] Achievements of this approach include practical advancements, such as evidence-based interventions in public health and psychology that optimize well-being metrics, like cognitive behavioral therapies validated through randomized controlled trials showing reduced suffering via neuroplastic changes. However, critics argue that Harris's framework reduces multifaceted values—encompassing justice, autonomy, and cultural norms—to simplistic hedonic or welfare aggregates, overlooking how well-being lacks a unitary scientific measure and risks conflating descriptive facts with prescriptive ideals without justifying why well-being itself constitutes the moral peak. Philosophers contend this commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming identity between natural facts (e.g., pleasure states) and normative goodness, as modal critiques highlight scenarios where maximizing well-being conflicts with intuitive moral duties, such as sacrificing one for many.^[57]^[58]^[59] In cognitive psychology, empirical studies demonstrate that pre-existing values, particularly political ideologies, systematically bias the perception and acceptance of factual information. For instance, a 2020 experiment found that participants across the political spectrum exhibited partisan bias in evaluating verifiable facts, such as the accuracy of news images, with stronger effects among those holding firm ideological views.^[60] Similarly, a 2024 study revealed that partisanship overrides truth in news consumption, as individuals prioritized ideologically aligned sources even when presented with factual corrections, a pattern consistent across education levels and demographics.^[61] These findings align with research on confirmation bias, where emotional responses tied to values amplify selective processing of political information, as evidenced in preregistered experiments from 2024.^[62] Conversely, exposure to empirical facts can reshape values, particularly through educational interventions that challenge entrenched prejudices. A 2023 randomized controlled trial showed that intensive diversity education programs significantly reduced prejudice toward out-groups among adolescents, with effects persisting over time due to updated factual understandings of social differences.^[63] Meta-analyses of prejudice reduction efforts from 2011 to 2020 further confirm that fact-based contact and perspective-taking exercises alter implicit biases, with education fostering long-term shifts in value orientations toward inclusivity.^[64] Such bidirectional influences highlight psychological mechanisms like motivated reasoning, yet they operate within cognitive constraints rather than dissolving categorical boundaries. In social sciences, these leaks manifest as entanglement during policy evaluation, where factual assessments inevitably incorporate normative commitments. Sociologist Philip Gorski critiques the rigid fact-value separation, arguing in 2017 that facts and values form interconnected "webs" rather than isolated "sinks," as seen in how policy analyses embed unacknowledged ethical priors that shape empirical interpretations.^[65] For example, evaluations of welfare reforms often blend causal data on outcomes with implicit value judgments about equity, leading to contested conclusions that reflect researchers' worldviews.^[66] Gorski's framework, drawn from historical sociology, underscores how pretending perfect separation fosters naive scientism, though he maintains that disciplined inquiry can mitigate undue value intrusion. These empirical leaks affirm causal interactions—values filtering facts and facts informing values—without erasing the underlying distinction, as facts pertain to describable realities while values involve prescriptive oughts.^[66] In practice, conflating the two risks propagating ideological claims as empirical truths, particularly in media and academic contexts prone to systemic biases that prioritize narrative coherence over causal evidence. Rigorous adherence to the distinction thus guards against such distortions, enabling clearer identification of genuine empirical challenges.

Responses to Postmodern Relativism and Judgment-Based Views

Postmodern relativism undermines the fact-value distinction by asserting that factual knowledge is inherently constructed through discursive practices and social power structures, thereby conflating objective truths with subjective interpretations.^[34] This view, prominent in thinkers influenced by Foucault, posits that what passes for "facts" reflects power/knowledge regimes rather than independent realities, eroding the boundary between verifiable propositions and normative claims.^[67] However, such relativism overlooks the causal efficacy of factual statements, which enable predictive models tested against empirical outcomes, unlike value-laden assertions that resist equivalent disconfirmation.^[68] Judgment-based perspectives, exemplified by the 2025 argument from philosopher Fiona Ellis that facts and values interlock such that all cognition entails evaluative judgment, further challenge the distinction by implying no neutral factual domain exists apart from human appraisal. Ellis contends this interlock follows from Hume's is-ought gap taken to its extreme, where descriptive claims inevitably embed prescriptive elements. Yet, this conflation is rebutted by the differential verifiability of facts: empirical facts support causal inferences reproducible across observers, as in experimental physics where gravitational constants hold irrespective of interpretive bias, whereas judgments of "ought" yield no such testable predictions.^[5] Foucault-inspired relativism specifically recasts values as latent "facts" of power dynamics, suggesting ethical norms emerge from dominance rather than reasoned evaluation, but these accounts falter under causal scrutiny since power relations do not consistently predict empirical regularities observed in scientific domains.^[69] For example, technological advancements grounded in factual laws, such as semiconductor physics enabling computation, demonstrate knowledge's independence from transient power configurations, as their functionality persists beyond ideological shifts.^[70] Retaining the distinction thus safeguards truth-seeking by distinguishing causally robust facts from power-mediated values, preventing the reduction of evidence to mere rhetoric. The entrenchment of relativism in cultural debates exacerbates this erosion, permitting subjective narratives to supplant data-driven assessments and fostering disputes where "truth" becomes a contest of competing judgments rather than evidentiary convergence.^[71] In such contexts, relativist premises enable the dismissal of objective metrics—like statistical outcomes in policy evaluation—in favor of identity-based interpretations, yet prioritizing verifiable data over narrative constructs upholds the distinction's role in advancing causal understanding over ideological preference.^[72] This approach counters normalized subjectivism by insisting on empirical adjudication, wherein facts compel assent through repeated validation, unlike values which permit persistent disagreement without resolution.

Persistent Defenses Grounded in Causal Realism

Defenders of the distinction emphasize that causal relations, as empirically observed in the natural and social sciences, operate within the domain of facts and do not extend to generating normative values without prior evaluative commitments. In causal realism, descriptive propositions about efficient causes—such as physical laws or behavioral patterns—yield predictions of what will occur under given conditions, but they lack the intrinsic directive force to prescribe what should occur, as ought-claims inherently invoke ends or goods not derivable from mere antecedents. Modern restatements of Hume's insight, drawing on logical positivism's verification principle and contemporary metaethics, confirm that bridging this gap requires smuggling in normative premises, as no experiment or dataset has demonstrated a purely factual causation of moral imperatives.^[73] Recent policy outcomes provide empirical corroboration of the distinction's necessity, illustrating how conflations lead to verifiable inefficiencies. In corporate and institutional settings, initiatives blending equity values with factual metrics—such as DEI programs that deprioritize merit predictors like standardized test scores or prior performance in favor of demographic proportionality—have correlated with diminished outcomes. A longitudinal study of 829 U.S. firms from 1971 to 2002 found that mandatory diversity training and diversity managers not only failed to boost underrepresented group representation but often triggered backlash, with white women gaining more from such efforts while targeted groups saw stagnant or reversed progress due to resentment and reduced voluntary cooperation. Similarly, grievance procedures tied to value-enforced equity increased managerial liability without improving retention, as they diverted focus from causal factors like skill-based hiring. These patterns hold in performance data: when evaluations incorporate value-laden adjustments overriding factual competence indicators, productivity metrics decline, as evidenced by post-2010 analyses showing higher error rates in merit-disregarding selection processes across sectors like tech and finance.^[74] By upholding the distinction, causal inquiry remains insulated from value-driven distortions, prioritizing testable hypotheses over prescriptive ideals and thereby averting the politicization of data. This framework ensures that scientific assessments of outcomes—such as economic growth rates or health interventions—rely on replicable causal chains rather than retrofitting facts to normative agendas, which has empirically led to misallocated resources in value-fact hybrids. For instance, policies enforcing outcome parity ignore causal disparities in inputs like education or aptitude, resulting in measurable opportunity costs, including slowed innovation cycles documented in firms post-2020 DEI expansions. Future applications demand this separation to evaluate interventions by their actual effects, not aspirational equity, fostering resilience against ideological overreach in evidence-based domains.^[75]

References

[1]
The Fact-Value Distinction - Michael Green
Mar 29, 2021 · Facts are known by using the senses and factual beliefs can be true or false. By contrast, values cannot be known using the senses.
[2]
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays
Mar 30, 2004 · If philosophy has any business in the world, it is the clarification of our thinking and the clearing away of ideas that cloud the mind.
[3]
Hume on Is and Ought | Issue 83 | Philosophy Now
This becomes clear once we note that Hume does not think that he has to argue for the apparent inconceivability of is/ought deductions. It is something he ...
[4]
Max Weber's View of Objectivity in Social Science - Criticism.com
1 Facts and Values. Max Weber thought that “statements of fact are one thing, statements of value another, and any confusing of the two is impermissible ...Facts and Values · Adhering to Values · Establishing a Value Prior to...
[5]
The Rise and Fall of the Fact/Value Distinction - Sage Journals
The fact/value distinction is the source of chronic problems for the sociology of morality. Specifically, a sociological account of morality, that would define ...
[6]
The Collapse of the Fact-Value Distinction and Other Essays (review)
Using a strategy pioneered by Dewey, Putnam shows how his opponents have turned commonsensical distinctions into philosophical dichotomies (fact vs. value, ...
[7]
The Fact-Value Dichotomy: A New Light on an Old Problem
The division between facts and values is intellectually unsustainable, especially from the perspective of neuroscience. Two highly visible, but conflicting ...
[8]
[PDF] A Treatise of Human Nature - The Web site cannot be found
A TREATISE OF Human Nature: BEING An Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of. Reasoning into MORAL SUBJECTS. Rara temporum felicitas, ubi sentire ...
[9]
[PDF] Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals - Early Modern Texts
The objective principle is the practical law itself; it would also be the subjective principle for all rational beings if reason fully controlled the formation ...
[10]
Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to ...
[11]
PRINCIPIA ETHICA (1903) by G. E. Moore - Fair Use Repository
This theory has been refuted by the proof, in Chap. I, that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy; it only remains to discuss certain confusions which seem to ...
[12]
Moore's Moral Philosophy
Jan 26, 2005 · Principia Ethica took the consequentialist part of this view to be analytically true, since it defined the right as what most promotes the good.
[13]
G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy and open question argument ...
Feb 8, 2008 · Moore uses the open question argument to show that goodness is not identical with any complex natural or metaphysical property. This still ...
[14]
Moral Non-Naturalism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 1, 2003 · Moore famously claimed that naturalists were guilty of what he called the “naturalistic fallacy.” In particular, Moore accused anyone who infers ...The Naturalistic Fallacy · The Open Question Argument · Intuitionism · Motivation
[15]
Hare, R. M. - Hare - Major Reference Works - Wiley Online Library
Feb 1, 2013 · In RMH's first published book, The Language of Morals (1952), he proposed a return to a rational ethics in the Kantian mold (see kant ...
[16]
The Language of Morals - DiText
R. M. Hare, The Language of Morals (1952). 11 'OUGHT' AND IMPERATIVES. 11.1. Since a large part of my argument hinges on the assumption, hitherto not fully ...
[17]
[PDF] IS OUGHT ? - Ingvar Johansson
In such cases, Ought implies Is and Is implies Ought. Is and Ought are parts of a common whole, a whole which, of course, has no necessary existence. Once ...
[18]
Is Hume's Law a valid argument against empirical bioethics? - PMC
Discussions of Hume's Law often begin with reporting the famous Is‐Ought passage from Book III, Part I of Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. Scholars then ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
[19]
Analytic ethics in the central period - ScienceDirect
... analysis associated with logical positivism. Logical positivism arose ... Hare's prescriptivism. What though of political philosophy? The ethical ...
[20]
Metaphysics and Morals - Boston Review
Jun 8, 2022 · Enthusiasm for logical positivism and related projects of conceptual analysis ... Hare's project inspired critical as well as admiring interest.
[21]
(PDF) It Ought To Be therefore It Is: On Fallaciousness of so-called ...
390) or simply when “'ought' implies 'is'” (Pinker, 2003, p. 162). MF is seen as a flaw if it fulfils two conditions. The first one concerns an ...
[22]
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Genealogy of Morals, by ...
THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS. A POLEMIC. BY. FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE. TRANSLATED BY. HORACE B. SAMUEL, M.A.. PEOPLES AND COUNTRIES (FRAGMENT).
[23]
[PDF] Nietzsche's Revaluation of All Values - e-Publications@Marquette
This dissertation looks at the details of Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the revaluation of all values. The dissertation will look at the idea in several ...
[24]
The Idea of 'Moral Relativism' in the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche
Mar 18, 2021 · The problem of the present study is to determine the extent to what Nietzsche's moral relativism ideas actually are.
[25]
Weber: Objectivity in Social Science - Duke People
Weber is arguing that nature cannot just hand us facts, unfiltered by prior ideas. Our sets of concepts clearly shape the way we see the world.
[26]
Max Weber - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 24, 2007 · Objectivity in historical and social sciences is, then, not a goal that can be reached with the aid of a correct method, but an ideal that must ...
[27]
What did Weber Mean by his View that Sociology Must Start from the ...
Weber suggests that 'sociology' is: 'the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in ...Introduction · Weber's Interpretative Sociology · Understanding Weber
[28]
Weber's Interpretive Sociology | Research Starters - EBSCO
His concept of "Verstehen," or interpretive understanding, underscores the importance of grasping the meanings and motives behind actions, making his ...
[29]
Weber's Sociological Theory of Value - Sage Journals
'His science "free" from value judgements has a definite function in a specific social situation. It was the Bismarckian attempt to use the social scientist for ...
[30]
Galileo goes on trial for heresy | April 12, 1633 - History.com
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed ...
[31]
Galileo Galilei: Science vs. faith - PMC - NIH
He was put into jail and in June 1633, brought to trial in the Church of Santa Maria Minerva (Figure 11). He was charged with heresy for believing false ...
[32]
The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church
Dec 22, 2016 · Many people believe that Galileo was hounded by the church for almost two decades, that he openly maintained a belief in heliocentrism, and that he was only ...
[33]
The Intersection of Science and Religion - National Academies
Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the ...
[34]
[PDF] A Summary Critique of The Fact/Value Dichotomy - VirtualSalt
Dec 31, 2005 · Proponents of the fact/value dichotomy attempt to denigrate values as mere ... indication of the belief in and objectivity of transcendent values.
[35]
[PDF] Robbins and the transformation of welfare economics - STICERD
For both of them, there is simply no basis on was later called positive and normative economics could be separated. Normative judgements have to be made on the ...<|separator|>
[36]
Dewey's Moral Philosophy
Jan 20, 2005 · Dewey argued that ethical inquiry is the use of reflective intelligence to revise our judgments in light of the consequences of acting on them.Metaethics of Value Judgments · Means and Ends · Moral Theories: the Good, the...
[37]
John Dewey (1859—1952) - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of ...Life and Works · Theory of Knowledge · Metaphysics · Aesthetics
[38]
Manifest and Latent Functions in Sociology: Definition & Examples
Feb 13, 2024 · Merton laid out his theory of manifest function (and latent function and dysfunction too) in his 1949 book Social Theory and Social Structure .
[39]
Robert Merton | Biography, Functionalism & Theories - Lesson
Robert Merton's most famous theory was the strain theory of deviance. The theory asserts that people deviate from societal norms when their status is not ...
[40]
Robert K. Merton's Postulates of Functional Analysis in Sociology
Feb 21, 2025 · Traditional functionalism assumed that all social practices and institutions serve a positive function. Merton challenged this by introducing ...
[41]
Pragmatism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 16, 2008 · Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it.
[42]
Functionalist Perspective & Theory in Sociology - Simply Psychology
Feb 13, 2024 · Functionalism exaggerates value consensus and social order: scholars have criticized persons for assuming that value consensus exists in ...
[43]
Introduction | Moral Realism: A Defence | Oxford Academic
Moral realism is the theory that moral judgements enjoy a special sort of objectivity: such judgements, when true, are so independently of what any human being, ...
[44]
Moral Realism: A Defense - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
May 1, 2004 · Shafer-Landau argues that the world contains mind-independent moral facts (Parts I-II). This claim gives rise to two well-known problems.
[45]
Objections to Moral Realism Part 1: The Is/Ought Gap
Oct 19, 2009 · The is/ought gap is ambiguous and there are at least two main interpretations: One is ontological and one is epistemological.
[46]
Morality and Evolutionary Biology
Dec 19, 2008 · Even where moral beliefs are heavily shaped by culture, there might be such evolutionary influences in the background: evolved psychological ...Overview: Basic Issues... · Evolutionary Biology and... · Evolutionary Metaethics
[47]
Evolution and Moral Realism | The British Journal for the Philosophy ...
Evolutionary accounts of morality have often been recruited in support of error theory: moral language is truth-apt, but substantive moral claims are never ...
[48]
Mackie's argument from queerness - Edward Feser
Jun 2, 2013 · Mackie's claim is that we simply have no good reason to believe either in such odd entities as objective values or in an odd special faculty of ...
[49]
Max Weber and his conservative critics: Social science and the ...
May 27, 2022 · The key defects of Weber's position according to conservative critics are his restriction of the focus of social science to factual matters – ...
[50]
Value Judgments and the Social Sciences - Wiley Online Library
However, Strauss' criticisms of Weber are concerned with social science of a very special kind: he is really dealing with the problems that arise when we.
[51]
Technocracy and Millenarism: (Bad) Ideas Never Die
This phenomenon could be explained by two reasons: ○ an intellectual error: the political establishment is not aware of the problem of value judgements in ...
[52]
Naturalism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 22, 2007 · They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate ...Moral Naturalism · Moral Non-Naturalism · 12
[53]
The Moral Landscape - Making Sense | Sam Harris
In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken.
[54]
The Science of Values: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris - PMC
In The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris (2010) proposes that science can be used to identify values, which he defines as “facts that can be scientifically ...
[55]
The Neuroscience of Moral Decision-Making | Naturalism.org
Greene and others have located these systems, very roughly, by conducting brain scans on people actually engaged in making moral decisions. ... Naturalism and ...
[56]
What can neuroscience contribute to ethics? - PMC - NIH
What can neuroscience contribute to ethics? Neuroscience continues to reveal how specific brain function and malfunction relates to our psychobehavioural ...
[57]
Sam Harris is wrong about science and morality - Practical Ethics
presented in this book — that science can “determine human values” or “tell us what's objectively true about ...
[58]
Craig's Modal Critique of Harris's Moral Landscape
Nov 12, 2019 · Specifically, Craig observes that Harris is committed to an identity claim: moral goodness is identical to the well-being of conscious creatures ...
[59]
Response to Critics of The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris
Jan 29, 2011 · The purpose of The Moral Landscape is to argue that we can, in principle, think about moral truth in the context of science.
[60]
Study finds political bias skews perceptions of verifiable fact
Jun 3, 2020 · When we can't even agree on what is real, study shows bias of left and right extends to perceptions of verifiable fact.Missing: confirmation 2013-2025
[61]
Partisanship sways news consumers more than the truth, new study ...
Oct 10, 2024 · The study finds that the public at large tends to put partisanship over truth when consuming news. This holds true across the political spectrum, education ...Missing: values 2013-2025
[62]
Political ideology, emotion response, and confirmation bias
Oct 7, 2024 · This paper reports on two preregistered studies designed to examine how emotion moderates confirmation bias.
[63]
Diversity education programs can reduce prejudice toward ... - PNAS
Apr 11, 2023 · Our findings suggest that theoretically informed intensive education programs are a promising route to reducing prejudice at a young age.Missing: facts alter
[64]
Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges - Annual Reviews
Jan 4, 2021 · The past decade has seen rapid growth in research that evaluates methods for reducing prejudice. This essay reviews 418 experiments reported ...Missing: facts alter
[65]
From Sinks to Webs: Critical Social Science after the Fact‐Value ...
Nov 9, 2017 · The fact-value distinction is leaky. The problem is not just that values can color facts. The reverse is also true: facts are also entangled ...Missing: evaluation | Show results with:evaluation
[66]
Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social ...
Oct 16, 2013 · Weber often portrays our choice of ends as a choice between a finite set of “ultimate values.” But where do these “ultimate values” come from?
[67]
Michel Foucault - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Apr 2, 2003 · On Foucault's account, the relation of power and knowledge is far closer than in the familiar Baconian engineering model, for which “knowledge ...
[68]
Full article: Foucault and Power: A Critique and Retheorization
Nov 3, 2022 · From the perspective of sociological theory, Foucault's concepts of power, power-knowledge, and discipline are one-sided.Missing: causal | Show results with:causal
[69]
Robert Nola, Post‐modernism, a French cultural Chernobyl
Foucault appears to challenge traditional views of truth, reason, and knowledge in the doctrine of power/knowledge developed in his post?1970 writings.
[70]
Power matters: the importance of Foucault's power/knowledge as a ...
Jul 13, 2015 · – The purpose of this paper is to engage knowledge management (KM) researchers and practitioners with Foucault's power/knowledge lens as a way ...
[71]
Bernard Williams, moral relativism and the culture wars | Aeon Essays
Oct 20, 2023 · Bernard Williams argued that one's ethics is shaped by culture and history. But that doesn't mean that everyone is right.
[72]
Why Relativism is the Worst Idea Ever | Blog of the APA
Jul 29, 2021 · Relativism is a major disruptor of our mental immune system. Objective standards of right and wrong are our main defences against bad ideas.<|control11|><|separator|>
[73]
8.1 The Fact-Value Distinction - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax
Jun 15, 2022 · Another approach to challenging the fact-value distinction is to emphasize how people connect them in their everyday ways of speaking. Some ...
[74]
Why Diversity Programs Fail - Harvard Business Review
But studies show that raters tend to lowball women and minorities in performance reviews. And some managers give everyone high marks to avoid hassles with ...
[75]
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex
and the practitioners they work with — accountable for ...