2
Reactions
3 Answers sorted by
There's a 'should' either stated or implied.
You could make a case that it is a normative statement - certainly not everyone would consider it not to be. It would have been clearer if I'd phrased my response as a question: 'would you consider that statement to be normative?'
My sense is that you have a pretty good idea of how philosophers use the word 'normative', and you're pursuing a level of clarity about it that's impossible to obtain. Since it (by definition) doesn't map to anything in the physical or mathematical worlds, and arguably even if it did, it just isn't possible to identify a class of phenomena with which you could concretely associate the word. It's a convenience notion moral realists use to gesture at what they hope are sufficiently shared concepts. If you're sceptical that it succeeds, maybe you just aren't a moral realist...
Aristotle would answer "'should' is said in many ways". I was of course thinking of the normative 'should', which I believe is the first that comes to mind when someone asks about normative sentences. But I'd be highly interested in a different kind of counterexample: a normative sentence without a 'should' stated or implied.
Some confusion in that:
In economics “Normative Econ” often means axiom based approach. State “reasonable conditions on preferences and production functions” derive necessary implications. See… most of books like Mas Colell et al.
In common parlance, maybe in psych, I’ve hear “normative behaviour” used to mean something like “typical, normal, socially acceptable behaviour”
I don't think there's a perfect answer, but as a heuristic I defer to the logical positivists - if you can't even in principle find direct evidence for or against the statement by observing the physical world and you can't mathematically prove it, and on top of that it sounds like a statement about behaviour or action, then you're probably in normland.
'If you add 1 to 1 you should get 2' is not a statement people would necessarily consider normative.