Normativity: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 7: Line 7:

”Normative” has specialized meanings in different academic disciplines such as [[philosophy]], [[social sciences]], and [[law]]. In most contexts, normative means ‘relating to an evaluation or value judgment.’ Normative propositions tend to evaluate some object or some course of action. Normative content differs from descriptive content.<ref name=”:0″>{{Cite book|title=Normativity|last=Jarvis|first=Thomson Judith|date=2008|publisher=Open Court|isbn=9780812696585|location=Chicago, Ill.|oclc=227918828}}</ref>

== ~~Philosophy~~ ==

== ==

Normativity is a quality of [[concepts]], [[judgments]], or principles that prescribe how things ought to be. As a feature of everything that should be, it encompasses the standards or reasons that guide or justify [[Action (philosophy)|actions]] and [[beliefs]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Copp|Morton|2022|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=vii–viii}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2018|pp=1–2}} }}</ref> In a slightly different sense, normativity can also refer to the capacity to establish and modify norms.<ref>{{harvnb|Debru|2011|pp=1–2}}</ref> [[Fact–value distinction|Normative statements contrast with descriptive statements]], which report what is the case rather than what should be the case. For example, the sentence “you should not smoke” is normative because it expresses a [[Norm (philosophy)|norm]] and prescribes a course of action. The sentence “you smoked yesterday”, by contrast, is descriptive since it merely states a fact.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=vii–viii}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2018|pp=1–2}} }}</ref>{{efn|Philosophers debate the precise relation between normative and descriptive claims. Some proposals deny that there is a strict distinction and define ”normativity” in terms of non-normative phenomena.<ref>{{harvnb|Debru|2011|p=4}}</ref>}}

⚫

Normativity is a pervasive phenomenon in everyday life that occurs when evaluating or criticizing others and when attempting to justify one’s own actions. Similarly, it is involved in practical deliberation when deciding what to do next and in theoretical reasoning when assessing whether the available evidence supports a belief. Normativity is relevant to many domains, including [[morality]], [[law]], [[politics]], [[language]], and the [[human sciences]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|O’Neill|1996|pp=xi–xii}} | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=vii–viii}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2018|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Darwall|2001|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Debru|2011|pp=1–2}} }}</ref> Philosophers debate whether it is a unified phenomenon that applies equally to all of these cases or a heterogeneous collection of related ideas whose precise definition varies with context and domain.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=vii–viii}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2018|pp=1–2, 8–9}} | {{harvnb|Finlay|2019|pp=187–188}} }}</ref>{{efn|For example, reason-first theories of normativity provide a unified account, arguing that normativity means that there is a reason to do or think something.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=viii}} | {{harvnb|McHugh|Way|Whiting|2018|pp=1–2, 8–9}} | {{harvnb|Skorupski|2007|pp=247–248}} }}</ref>}}

A ”’normative”’ or ”’prescriptive”’ statement is one that evaluates certain kinds of words, decisions, or actions as either correct or incorrect, or one that sets out guidelines for what a person “should” do. In [[philosophy]], normative theory aims to make moral judgments on events, focusing on preserving something they deem as morally good, or preventing a change for the worse.<ref>{{Citation|last=Strauss|first=Leo|title=What Is Political Philosophy? The Problem of Political Philosophy|date=2017-09-08|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351314367-5|work=Behavioralism in Political Science|pages=93–108|publisher=Routledge|doi=10.4324/9781351314367-5 |isbn=978-1-351-31436-7|access-date=2020-12-14|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The theory has its origins in Greece.<ref>{{Citation|last=Bauböck|first=Rainer|title=Normative political theory and empirical research|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511801938.004|work=Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences|year=2008 |pages=40–60|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511801938.004 |isbn=978-0-511-80193-8|access-date=2020-12-14|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Normative statements of such a type make claims about how institutions should or [[Is-ought problem|ought]] to be designed, how to [[Value theory|value]] them, which things are [[goodness and value theory|good]] or bad, and which [[Action (philosophy)|action]]s are [[right]] or [[wrong]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Leftwich|first=Adrian|title=What is politics?: the activity and its study|publisher=Polity|year=2004|location=Oxford}}</ref> Claims are usually contrasted with [[Positive statement|positive]] (i.e. descriptive, [[explanation|explanatory]], or [[constative]]) claims when describing types of [[theory|theories]], [[belief]]s, or [[proposition]]s. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual, empirical statements that attempt to describe [[reality]].{{citation needed|date=November 2019}}

Normative claims can be analyzed in terms of their content, such as a rule that should be followed, and the authority or normative force they carry. For example, some normative reasons merely favor one course of action over another, while others strictly demand a specific conduct. In either case, a normative reason does not coerce compliance: individuals may act otherwise out of ignorance or [[Akrasia|against their better judgment]]. Accordingly, there can be a difference between what a person [[desires]] or [[Intention|intends]] and what they normatively should do.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dancy|2000|pp=xvi–xv}} | {{harvnb|O’Neill|1996|pp=xi–xv}} }}</ref>

For example, “children should eat vegetables”, and “those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither” are philosophically normative claims. On the other hand, “vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins”, and “a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both” are positive claims. Whether a statement is philosophically normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.

Normativity is closely related to norms, understood as general principles of how individuals should act or think. However, the term ”norm” also has meanings not directly related to normativity. For example, a [[statistical]] norm is a statement about what is typical or average, such as the average height of adult men, without implying that things should be this way. Similarly, normativity is distinguished from mere regularities or common practices, such as a habit of eating dinner at a particular time.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Becker|Becker|2001|p=1242}} | {{harvnb|Wedgwood|2013|loc=§ Senses of ‘Normative’}} }}</ref> There are many normative concepts, such as ”right” and ”wrong”, ”good” and ”bad”, ”rational” and ”irrational”, ”justified” and ”unjustified”, and ”permitted” and ”obligated”.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Wedgwood|2013|loc=§ Normative Concepts}} | {{harvnb|Turner|2010|pp=1–2}} }}</ref>

The word ”normativity” has its roots in the [[Latin language|Latin]] term {{lang|la|norma}}, meaning {{gloss|rule}} or {{gloss|pattern}}. It gave rise to the [[French language|French]] word {{lang|fr|normatif}}, which entered English as the term ”normative” in the 19th century. The word ”normativity” was coined in the 1930s as a technical term in academic discourse.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Debru|2011|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|OED staff|2025}} | {{harvnb|MW staff|2025}} | {{harvnb|MW staff|1991|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=IrcZEZ1bOJsC&pg=PA321 321]}} }}</ref>

== Philosophy ==

⚫

There are several schools of thought regarding the status of philosophically normative statements and whether they can be [[reason|rationally]] discussed or defended. Among these schools are the tradition of [[practical reason]] extending from [[Aristotle]] through [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]] to [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas]], which asserts that they can, and the tradition of [[emotivism]], which maintains that they are merely expressions of emotions and have no cognitive content.

Relating to an evaluative standard

Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. A norm in this sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. “Normative” is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in science, law, and philosophy try to restrict the use of the term “normative” to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.^[1]^[2]

Normative has specialized meanings in different academic disciplines such as philosophy, social sciences, and law. In most contexts, normative means ‘relating to an evaluation or value judgment.’ Normative propositions tend to evaluate some object or some course of action. Normative content differs from descriptive content.^[3]

Definition

Normativity is a quality of concepts, judgments, or principles that prescribe how things ought to be. As a feature of everything that should be, it encompasses the standards or reasons that guide or justify actions and beliefs.^[4] In a slightly different sense, normativity can also refer to the capacity to establish and modify norms.^[5] Normative statements contrast with descriptive statements, which report what is the case rather than what should be the case. For example, the sentence “you should not smoke” is normative because it expresses a norm and prescribes a course of action. The sentence “you smoked yesterday”, by contrast, is descriptive since it merely states a fact.^[6]^[a]

Normative claims can be analyzed in terms of their content, such as a rule that should be followed, and the authority or normative force they carry. For example, some normative reasons merely favor one course of action over another, while others strictly demand a specific conduct. In either case, a normative reason does not coerce compliance: individuals may act otherwise out of ignorance or against their better judgment. Accordingly, there can be a difference between what a person desires or intends and what they normatively should do.^[11]

Normativity is closely related to norms, understood as general principles of how individuals should act or think. However, the term norm also has meanings not directly related to normativity. For example, a statistical norm is a statement about what is typical or average, such as the average height of adult men, without implying that things should be this way. Similarly, normativity is distinguished from mere regularities or common practices, such as a habit of eating dinner at a particular time.^[12] There are many normative concepts, such as right and wrong, good and bad, rational and irrational, justified and unjustified, and permitted and obligated.^[13]

The word normativity has its roots in the Latin term norma, meaning ‘rule‘ or ‘pattern‘. It gave rise to the French word normatif, which entered English as the term normative in the 19th century. The word normativity was coined in the 1930s as a technical term in academic discourse.^[14]

Philosophy

There are several schools of thought regarding the status of philosophically normative statements and whether they can be rationally discussed or defended. Among these schools are the tradition of practical reason extending from Aristotle through Kant to Habermas, which asserts that they can, and the tradition of emotivism, which maintains that they are merely expressions of emotions and have no cognitive content.

There is large debate in philosophy surrounding whether one can get a normative statement of such a type from an empirical one (i.e. whether one can get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, or a ‘value’ from a ‘fact’). Aristotle is one scholar who believed that one could in fact get an ought from an is. He believed that the universe was teleological and that everything in it has a purpose. To explain why something is a certain way, Aristotle believed one could simply say that it is trying to be what it ought to be.^[15] On the contrary, David Hume believed one cannot get an ought from an is because no matter how much one thinks something ought to be a certain way it will not change the way it is. Despite this, Hume used empirical experimental methods whilst looking at the philosophically normative. Similar to this was Kames, who also used the study of facts and the objective to discover a correct system of morals.^[16] The assumption that ‘is’ can lead to ‘ought’ is an important component of the philosophy of Roy Bhaskar.^[17]

Philosophically normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity of such a type is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science).^{[citation needed]}

Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups and societies define what is in accordance with their philosophically normative standards.) This has led philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements of such a type. However, other philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of philosophically normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity.^[18]

Social sciences

In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued (see philosophy above). While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behaviour, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set. From such reasoning, however, functionalism shares an affinity with ideological conservatism.

Normative economics deals with questions of what sort of economic policies should be pursued, in order to achieve desired (that is, valued) economic outcomes.

Politics

The use of normativity and normative theory in the study of politics has been questioned, particularly since the rise in popularity of logical positivism. It has been suggested by some that normative theory is not appropriate to be used in the study of politics, because of its value based nature, and a positive, value neutral approach should be taken instead, applying theory to what is, not to what ought to be.^[19] Others have argued, however, that to abandon the use of normative theory in politics is misguided, if not pointless, as not only is normative theory more than a projection of a theorist’s views and values, but also this theory provides important contributions to political debate.^[20] Pietrzyk-Reeves discussed the idea that political science can never truly be value free, and so to not use normative theory is not entirely helpful. Furthermore, perhaps the normative dimension political study has is what separates it from many branches of social sciences.^[19]

International relations

In the academic discipline of International relations, Smith, Baylis & Owens in the Introduction to their 2008 ^[21] book make the case that the normative position or normative theory is to make the world a better place and that this theoretical worldview aims to do so by being aware of implicit assumptions and explicit assumptions that constitute a non-normative position, and align or position the normative towards the loci of other key socio-political theories such as political liberalism, Marxism, political constructivism, political realism, political idealism and political globalization.

Law

In law, as an academic discipline, the term “normative” is used to describe the way something ought to be done according to a value position. As such, normative arguments can be conflicting, insofar as different values can be inconsistent with one another. For example, from one normative value position the purpose of the criminal process may be to repress crime. From another value position, the purpose of the criminal justice system could be to protect individuals from the moral harm of wrongful conviction.

Standards documents

The CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations describe “normative” as applying to a document or element “that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results” which are mandatory.^[22]

Normative elements are defined in International Organization for Standardization Directives Part 2 as “elements that describe the scope of the document, and which set out provisions”.^[23] Provisions include “requirements”, which are criteria that must be fulfilled and cannot be deviated from, and “recommendations” and “statements”, which are not necessary to comply with.

References

^ Bicchieri, Cristina (2005). The Grammar of Society:The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521574907.
^ Bicchieri, Cristina (2017). Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190622053.
^ Jarvis, Thomson Judith (2008). Normativity. Chicago, Ill.: Open Court. ISBN 9780812696585. OCLC 227918828.
^
^ Debru 2011, pp. 1–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDebru2011 (help)
^
^ Debru 2011, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDebru2011 (help)
^
^
^
^
- Dancy 2000, pp. xvi–xv harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDancy2000 (help)
- O’Neill 1996, pp. xi–xv harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO’Neill1996 (help)
^
^
- Wedgwood 2013, § Normative Concepts harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWedgwood2013 (help)
- Turner 2010, pp. 1–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTurner2010 (help)
^
^ Gray, J. W. (July 19, 2011). “The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get “Ought” from “Is?”“. Ethical realism. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
^ Shaver, Robert. “Hume’s Moral Theory?” History of Philosophy Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3, 1995, pp. 317–331., www.jstor.org/stable/27744669. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020.
^ Leigh Price (2019) Introduction to the special issue: normativity, Journal of Critical Realism, 18:3, 221–238 [1]
^ Korsgaard, C. (1992). “The Sources of Normativity” (PDF). The Tanner Lectures on Human Value.
^ ^a ^b Pietrzyk-Reeves, Dorota (2017). “Normative Political Theory”. Teoria Polityki. 1. doi:10.4467/00000000tp.17.009.6588. S2CID 150007680.
^ Della Porta, D; Keating, M (2008). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 1 December 2022.
^ The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, New York, Oxford University Press ISBN 9780199297771, Fourth edition, pp.2-13
^ “Internal Regulations, Part 3: Principles and rules for the structure and drafting of CEN and CENELEC documents” (PDF). CEN–CENELEC. 2022. Retrieved 2023-05-13.
^ “ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Principles and rules for the structure and drafting of ISO and IEC documents”. ISO IEC. 2021. Retrieved 2023-05-17.

Normativity: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Definition

Philosophy

Social sciences

Politics

International relations

Law

Standards documents

See also

References

Further reading

Leave a Comment

Definition

Philosophy

Social sciences

Politics

International relations

Law

Standards documents

See also

References

Further reading

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment