There are a variety of reasons why we are tempted to draw a line between facts and values -- and to draw it in such a way that values are put outside the realm of rational argument altogether. For one thing, it is much easier to say, thats a value judgment, meaning, thats just a matter of subjective preference, than to do what Socrates tried to teach us: to examine who we are and what our deepest convictions are and hold those convictions up to the searching test of reflective examination. As Michele Moody-Adams argued in an important book about cultural relativism, if we give up the very idea of a rationally irresolvable ethical dispute, we are not thereby committing ourselves to the prospect of actually resolving all our ethical disagreements, but we are committing ourselves to the idea that there is always the possibility of further discussion and further examination of any disputed issue, including the Socratic self-examination that I just spoke of. The worst thing about the fact/value dichotomy is that in practice it functions as a discussion-stopper, and not just a discussion-stopper, but a thought-stopper... The solution is neither to give up on the very possibility of rational discussion nor to seek an Archimedean point, an absolute conception outside of all contexts and problematic situations, but -- as Dewey taught his whole life long -- to investigate and discuss and try things out cooperatively, democratically, and above all fallibilistically. - Hilary Putnam
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:02:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015