David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:97-102 (2006)
In the human world if there is knowledge about something, if this knowledge is true, then there must be a connection between the epistemological object and the judgment that gives us knowledge about this object. It seems that there is a universal consensus about that.But when the issue is knowledge about value and values, judgments about the value of something and about values are not considered to be genuine. This is a typical prejudice of our age about value and values. It is true that so-called value-judgments, i.e. judgments in which people call things good or bad, are not genuine judgments, because they don't possess any epistemological object. But propositions about values, which are also called 'judgments', as well as 'statements' or 'assertions', are not the same as value-judgments, because this kind of knowledge, too, is about something that is independent of the person who puts forward such a judgment, something that has its own ontical specificity. Judgments or propositions or statements about values are knowledge, and can provide knowledge, while value-judgments are not knowledge and cannot provide any knowledge. Knowledge about the value of something and about values do seem to be judgments, but this cannot justify the confusion of such a judgment with a value-judgment. To dispel such confusion, first of all we have to clarify the terms we use
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
V. Villa (1997). Legal Theory and Value Judgments. Law and Philosophy 16 (4):447-477.
Hugh Lacey (2003). The Behavioral Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments. Behavior and Philosophy 31:209 - 223.
Anusorn Singhapakdi & Scott J. Vitell (1993). Personal and Professional Values Underlying the Ethical Judgments of Marketers. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (7):525 - 533.
Michael J. Pendlebury (2000). Perception and Objective Knowledge. In The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 5: Epistemology. Charlottesville: Philosophy Documentation Center. 29-38.
Svend Brinkmann (2005). Psychology's Facts and Values: A Perennial Entanglement. Philosophical Psychology 18 (6):749 – 765.
Brie Gertler (2011). Self-Knowledge and the Transparency of Belief. In Anthony Hatzimoysis (ed.), Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Frederik Kaufman (1992). Moral Realism and Moral Judgments. Erkenntnis 36 (1):103 - 112.
Patricia Casey Douglas, Ronald A. Davidson & Bill N. Schwartz (2001). The Effect of Organizational Culture and Ethical Orientation on Accountants' Ethical Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics 34 (2):101 - 121.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2003). Kant's Theory of Judgment, and Judgments of Taste: On Henry Allison's "Kant's Theory of Taste&Quot;. [REVIEW] Inquiry 46 (2):143 – 163.
Barry C. Smith (2012). Empathie Et Perception des Valeurs. Dialogue 51 (1):119-127.
Martin Montminy (2009). Contextualism, Relativism and Ordinary Speakers' Judgments. Philosophical Studies 143 (3):341 - 356.
Alan H. Goldman (2001). Moral Reasoning Without Rules. Mind and Society 2 (2):105-118.
Mark Thomas Walker (2003). The Freedom of Judgment. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):63 – 92.
Mark Thomas Walker (2003). The Freedom of Judgment. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):63-92.
Daniele Porello (2010). Ranking Judgments in Arrow's Setting. Synthese 173 (2):199 - 210.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads4 ( #251,104 of 1,098,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #283,807 of 1,098,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?