Discussion Question Number Three

Prescriptive Claims vs. Value Judgments


In Chapter two of Epstein, the reader learns about the differences from a prescriptive claim towards a descriptive one, as well as how value judgments can come into play in a discussion for someone's reasoning on a descriptive claim, and if one might deem if it "right, wrong, better, or worse" (essentially turning it into a prescriptive claim by demanding that something is different from what it is). 


According to the text, the difference between the two terms comes from illustrating if something is simply said (descriptive), versus how something one personally believes what is being spoken should be (prescriptive). Prescriptive claims are more commonly used when illustrating moral claims because when they explain their reasoning, they reveal if they are against or for something, which is based from their morals rather than what already is. Moral claims are initially too ambiguous or vague because it is subjective rather than objective---possibly coming from feeling instead of factual evidence.


Example One: Johnny's cereal bowl is empty.
This is a descriptive claim because it shows what is, which in this case, being that Johnny has an empty cereal bowl. He can do nothing about it, and he is not proposing to change that.


Example Two: Lucille believes drinking wine is terrible and unhealthy.
This is a prescriptive claim because Lucille is illustrating her views on wine, and imposing that how it is now isn't right, as drinking wine in her view is something bad and essentially negative. This is her value judgment, being that she would more commonly equate wine drinking with the perspective and personal morals/standards that it is wrong or worse than not doing so (which would be the right or better decision in judgment). Her statement also shows ambiguity and vagueness which can be seen in prescriptive claims.


It's very handy and fascinating seeing the differences between descriptive and prescriptive because it helps to realize where in some situations (as mentioned in the book) you might learn about someone who sees something a certain way without having a good reason to do so, for example. But also, in general, to distinguish between simple statements of either kind.