So I'm a very visual person and sometimes an outline and hierarchy helps me understand concepts. In Rothbard's Mantle of Science he points out that if there are means and ends, the different types of studies of human action are simply different aspects of looking at means and ends. I'll let him explain:
We have already begun to build the first blocks of the many-storied edifice of the true sciences of man—and they are all grounded on the fact of man’s volition.2 On the formal fact that man uses means to attain ends we ground the science of praxeology, or economics; psychology is the study of how and why man chooses the contents of his ends; technology tells what concrete means will lead to various ends; and ethics employs all the data of the various sciences to guide man toward the ends he should seek to attain, and therefore, by imputation, toward his proper means. None of these disciplines can make any sense whatever on scientistic premises. If men are like stones, if they are not purposive beings and do not strive for ends, then there is no economics, no psychology, no ethics, no technology, no science of man whatever.
So I understand taht Economics is a value free subject. Only the fact that there are choices and means and ends on in this world can be stated, not if those ends are bad for example. But does that mean that the other studies, technology, psychology, ethics, etc. are value free? I'm a little confused. I guess the way i'd like to visualize it is by some kind of heirarchy of value-free-ness (for lack of a better term). Is praxeology (economics) the only value free science? If so why? Why not technology?
A little help would be great.
Economics is a science. Science is value free. Science is a method of gaining wordly knowledge.
http://i.imgur.com/inQ8R.png
Technology is most definitely -not- value free. It aims at bringing about means of making our lives easier. I mean engineering is pretty objective and science-based, but when you say technology you are basically referring to things to make our lives easier and expand our ability to control our environments. There is an implied goal to it.
Ethics is also not value-free, as it concerns the study and realisation of desirable behaviours, and its very subject-domain -is- value, although as with technology the "how to get there" part could be objective. Psychology is a science, and like economics it aims to describe and not proscribe.
All Rothbard is saying is that the economist doesn't assume whether particular outcomes are good or bad. To the extent that the economist uses the words "desirable", "undesirable", "good", "bad" etc., they are looking at it from the point of view of the agents, not imbuing moral judgement into it. This is important, because modern economics grew out of political economy, which itself is concerned with definite ends based on particular conceptions of what will achieve the "social good".
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
So if i'm trying to make the argument that technology has no moral sense, it's amoral and that its simply the actions of an individual with that technology that is bad would that make sense? For example, a gun is neither intrinsically good or intrinsically bad. But if an evil man comes along and murders someone it's not the gun's fault but the evil man's. Does that make sense?
If that makes sense, then what about the State, is it a technology?
It's certainly a means to an end. Unlike a gun though, which exists for defence, a state necessarily involves initiation of coercion against non-consenting parties. You are misinterpreting my point, however. I am not stating that the tools are imbued with a moral character - merely that technology exists to satisfy our desires.
So a good litmus test for any technology being moral or immoral is if its even possible to be used in self-defense?
You're confusing is and ought.
If a bullet is shot at someone's head then we can look at the physics/biology of what happens. This cannot tell us what should happen or whether what does happens is good or bad. It is merely what happens. If someone looked at the viewpoint that the bullet would pierce the person's skull and said "that's bad, that cannot be how this would work", then they are defying science itself because they are no longer learning how things work, they are making things up in order to obscure actual fact.
What we consider to be good might guide what we attempt to research, so for instance if people consider curing cancer to be good then they might fund research to achieve this fact, and neglect looking into a new type of nerve gas. This does not alter the science or facts behind either of these two areas.
There is not necessarily a hierarchy I can think of, but basically like others have said, value free sciences deal with 'is/are' rather than 'ought/should be.' Other sciences, for example sociology, are considered value free based on the fact that they explain the way things develop. However, to keep these scientists in check, there are things like the IRB and peer-reviews, which I still think are subjected to bias.
My question...
the conclusions of value judgements are subjective - meaning that the value free judgements are objective and based upon completeness of knowledge. But does that mean it is possible that one science or particular area be tentatively valued until the completeness of information/understanding makes the judgement value free? (here is where a 'hierarchy' might be established)
In Rothbard's view, ethics can be derived in a value-free manner... specifically, he viewed the is-ought dichotomy as a false dichotomy. I think modern ethical theorists would categorize Rothbard as a "functionalist" though that would not be completely accurate... he was really a natural-law theorist and he felt that natural law theory had been left in disrepair and needed to be extended. I am sympathetic with Rothbard's view but I think care is required for absolute clarity since moral language is fraught with multiple connotations. "Ought" can mean several things. I have written elsewhere that there are at least four levels of connotation at work in moral language:
• A value-laden expression of an individual's own sentiments about a particular kind of human behavior (distaste or preference). • A value-free description of prevailing social norms. • A value-free assessment of the suitability of specific ends to bringing about an individual's satisfaction (in the technical sense of this term). • A value-laden assessment of the correct resolution of a dispute
Moral language is complicated by the fact that human language tends to mash together the different connotations in ways that make it difficult to keep track of what exactly is being said. In the first and fourth connotations, moral language is always value-laden. Rothbard, thus, is not talking about these connotations. In particular, Rothbard's focus (in Ethics of Liberty where he clearly explicates his system) is on the third connotation, which is where Epicurus (my favorite moral theorist) also placed the locus of ethical discussion. Thus, the corpus of ethics is actually value-free. What you ought to do - in the sense of the suitability of specific ends to bringing about your own satisfaction - is not a value-laden question... you do not have to assume particular ends (values) in order to answer the question which ends you should have in order to attain happiness.
As for the other disciplines Rothbard mentions, they can also be understood as value-free. If you connect them to a wider ethical stance, they are for all practical intents and purposes value-laden, something which we should not be spooked by. There's nothing wrong with value-laden science when you start with a rational ethics to inform the values you choose to do science by! The "conflict" betwen rationality and morality disappears precisely because reason informs choice. So, there is no hierarchy of "value-freeness"... all these disciplines are value-free... or value-laden once connected to a rational ethic.
Clayton -
Hey Clayton, where is the 'elsewhere" you've written about this. Method is so interesting to me.
In reply to the OP. An easy way to tell if something is value free is to see if it says that something is "good" [=something you should be encouraged to do] or "bad" [=something you should be discouraged from doing]. If it doesn't say something is good or bad, it is value free.
Technology tells us how to make stuff. It doesn't tell make any statements about good or bad.
Psycholgy is the same thing.
Ethics tells us what is good and what is bad [in the opinion of the writer on the subject], so it's not value free.
Let's look at some examples. Here are two sentences from the Communist Manifesto:
1. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
2. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
The first sentence is value free, since it doesn't say something is good or bad. The second is not value free, because of the phrase "It is high time", which is saying it is a good thing if the Commies publish their views etc.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer