From the Epstein reading that was assigned this week, I chose to focus on section C. Much like the other pair of claims discussed in Chapter 2 (subjective/objective), the book also describes the differences between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" claims. A "descriptive" claim focuses more on describing what something is (a person, a concept, a situation, etc), while a "prescriptive" claim describes what something should be. The main detail when trying to label a claim as either descriptive or prescriptive is to look at the wording of the statement. If any words such as "should", "ought", or "shouldn't" are present, then it's a prescriptive claim as it's telling us what we should or shouldn't do.
Value judgment plays a big role in helping us distinguish a descriptive claim from a prescriptive claim. A "value judgment" is any word or action we associate with as either being "right" or "wrong". This isn't factual 100% of the time, but anytime we make a judgment in a statement about a certain topic, it's meant as a prescriptive claim. As Epstein says, "What appears to be a moral claim or value judgment, though, is often too vague to be a claim" (pg. 24). By this we see that by making a value judgment of a certain topic, we must be specific about what exactly we feel should/shouldn't be done. Otherwise, we leave the claim too vague to effectively debate.
Epstein, Richard L., and Carolyn Kernberger. Critical Thinking, Third Edition. 3rd ed. California: Wadsworth, 2006. P.24. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment