You will recall that in Chapter 7 of Reading Argumentative Texts I discussed ambiguity and three nonliteral uses of language, specifically, irony, normative statements (and how they are distinct from factual statements), and rhetoric. It will be useful here to expand on the discussions in Reading of ambiguity and the fact/normative distinction and to show an interesting way these are related.
In Chapter 7 of Reading, relying on a time-honored philosophical view I treated the distinction between factual and normative statements as being sharp, such that a normative conclusion could never be inferred from factual premises alone. But consider the statement “John is rude”. Is it a factual or a normative statement?
A moment’s reflection shows that it could be either, and so with respect to some specific sentences the distinction between factual and normative statements may not be sharp. Those sentences may be ambiguous, especially depending on the context.
As a matter of grammatical form, “John is rude” looks like a statement of fact. “John is rude” has the same grammatical form as “John is left-handed” or “John is fluent in French”. As factual statement, it may mean that it can be shown that John routinely violates certain rules of etiquette, e.g, he routinely interrupts others in conversation, he does not hold doors open for the infirm, he takes more than his fair share of common food at the table, etc. (John’s conduct is factually different from Mary’s, who in fact is routinely polite.)
But the speaker or writer of “John is rude” may be implying that John should act differently, that he ought to stop violating the rules of etiquette. Normatively, it may mean that the writer is criticizing John’s conduct, so that “John is rude” implies “and he ought to be more considerate of others”, or “John, you are rude! You ought to be more polite”. The “ought” in these sentences suggests that the speaker believes that persons have a duty to obey the rules of etiquette (and perhaps also those moral rules that are related to the rules of etiquette, such as the Golden Rule).
Similarly, “John is a reckless driver” is ambiguous. It can have both a a factual and a normative meaning. Factually, it may mean that it can be shown empirically that John typically drives without concern for the possibly harmful consequences of his driving or that he routinely violates the rules of the road, e.g., he runs through stop signs, he drives down the middle of two-lane roads, he doesn’t yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and so on. As a normative statement, a speaker or writer may say this of John as a way of criticizing his driving habits because his heedlessness of the consequences of his driving or his violations of the rules of the road make him dangerous to others (contrary to a basic moral norm) or because his driving is imprudent (“John, your reckless driving is going to cost you your license and you’ll not be able to get to work.”) (contrary to a rule of prudence that we should not act contrary to our own interests).
In sum, this discussion provides you with a new tool for your reading toolbox: when it appears that a writer is attempting to draw a normative conclusion solely from factual premises, take a moment to ask whether any of his premises is ambiguous and could be interpreted as both factual and normative. If so, then the author may be relying on a normative premise to support his normative conclusion. Then he is not committing the logical error of drawing a normative conclusion from solely factual premises. His argument may still be invalid or weak if his normative premise (or premises) is itself open to argument. But that is a different type of error.
Reading Argumentative Texts 