Another example from the workbook:

Section B: The Distinction between fact and value


Class discussion:

Fact: In the technical jargon of philosophy, as well as in every day natural language, the word ‘fact’ is used in many different ways. But we all mostly understand it as meaning something like a true bit of information about the world, or the world itself. For the purposes of this workshop we shall take ‘fact’ to mean a type of statement which can be shown to be either true or false.

Value: ‘Value’ is also a controversial and ambiguous term. It can make reference to so many different things. For the purposes of this workshop we shall take ‘value’ to mean subjective (either personal or societal) opinions, which cannot be shown to be either true or false.

Class discussion: examples

a. Sunset is the most beautiful time of the day.
b. Cricket is a game which requires good hand-eye coordination.
c. 80% of people in South Africa believe that God exists.
d. A dog is a type of cat.
e. Dog is man’s best friend.
f. Kitchener built forty concentration camps containing 116 000 prisoners, most of them women and children.
g. Profits are regulated by fixing prices.
h. Profits ought to be regulated by fixing prices.

1. Group work: Identifying fact and value statements

Look at the following arguments carefully. First, decide whether the argument is valid or invalid. Then look at each premise and determine whether it is a statement of fact or value. Remember, if you think a stament is false this does not necessarily make it a matter of opinion. If it can be shown to be false, it must be a statement of fact (according to our definitions above), which just happens to be false.

Argument 1:
Premise 1: Capitalism is an economic system which favours the rich over the poor.
Premise 2: All economic systems which favour the rich over the poor are unjust.
Conclusion: Therefore, capitalism is unjust.

Argument 2:
Premise 1: Euthanasia is the painless killing of a person suffering from a disease which cannot be cured.
Premise 2: More than 75% of people in Sweden request euthanasia in their wills, if they should protract an incurable disease.
Premise 3: All stipulations in wills regarding euthanasia are honoured in Sweden.
Conclusion: Therefore more than 75% of people in Sweden will be euthanased if they protract an incurable disease.

Argument 3:
Premise 1: Euthanasia is the painless killing of a person suffering from a disease which cannot be cured.
Premise 2: More than 75% of people in Sweden request euthanasia in their wills, if they should protract an incurable disease.
Premise 3: All stipulations in wills regarding euthanasia are honoured in Sweden.
Conclusion: Therefore, more than 75% of people ought to be euthanased in Sweden if they protract an incurable disease.