Normative arguments always have to embed an accurate representation of reality, and a correct prediction that they will actually work.
They only have to claim this. Many merely imply this without bothering to provide arguments.
For example, some guy like Marx says “I’ve been thinking for a few decades, I have predicted the optimal state of human interaction.
And that’s precisely the point where the disentangling of the empirical and the normative rears up and shouts: Hold on! What is this “optimal” thing? Optimal for whom, how, and according to which values?
The normative part of his argument seems to come trivially from the positive explanation of the world.
I don’t think so. Marx thought the proletarian revolution to be inevitable and that is NOT a normative statement. He also thought it to be a good thing which is normative, but those are two different claims.
I think it’s very rare that people share the same positive view of the world, but disagree normatively.
Oh, I think it happens all the time: Should we go eat now or in an hour? Alice: Now. Bob: In an hour. That’s a normative disagreement without any sign of different empirics.
In more extended normative arguments people usually feel obliged to present a biased picture of the world to support their conclusions, but if you drill down it’s not uncommon to find that two different people agree on what the world is, but disagree about the ways it should be… adjusted.
They only have to claim this. Many merely imply this without bothering to provide arguments.
And that’s precisely the point where the disentangling of the empirical and the normative rears up and shouts: Hold on! What is this “optimal” thing? Optimal for whom, how, and according to which values?
I don’t think so. Marx thought the proletarian revolution to be inevitable and that is NOT a normative statement. He also thought it to be a good thing which is normative, but those are two different claims.
Oh, I think it happens all the time: Should we go eat now or in an hour? Alice: Now. Bob: In an hour. That’s a normative disagreement without any sign of different empirics.
In more extended normative arguments people usually feel obliged to present a biased picture of the world to support their conclusions, but if you drill down it’s not uncommon to find that two different people agree on what the world is, but disagree about the ways it should be… adjusted.