Facts, Values, and the Naturalistic Fallacy in Psychology



The relationship between facts and values is tremendously intricate in psychology, as in the other human and social sciences, which take as their object of interest human beings as acting persons. Often, two premises are taken for granted in ­scientific psychology: First, that only statements of fact can be objectively true, while statements of value can be nothing but expressions of subjective preferences. Second, that there is an unbridgeable logical gap between factual and evaluative statements so that no descriptive statement can entail an evaluative statement (without the addition of some evaluative premise).


Moral Judgment Constitutive Rule Psychological Phenomenon Moral Fact Function Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brinkmann, S. (2004b). The topography of moral ecology. Theory and Psychology, 14, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinkmann, S. (2005). Psychology’s facts and values: A perennial entanglement. Philosophical Psychology, 18, 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinkmann, S. (2006b). Mental life in the space of reasons. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Natural ethical facts: Evolution, connectionism, and moral cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Davydova, I., & Sharrock, W. (2003). The rise and fall of the fact/value distinction. The Sociological Review, 51, 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. First published 1979.Google Scholar
  8. Giorgi, A. (1992). An exploratory phenomenological psychological approach to the experience of the moral sense. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 23, 50–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giorgi, A. (2006). Facts, vales and the psychology of the human person. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 6, 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Harré, R. (2004). Staking our claim for qualitative psychology as science. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 3–14.Google Scholar
  11. Hauser, M. D. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designes our universal sense of right and wrong. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  12. Hodges, B. H., & Baron, R. M. (1992). Values as constraints on affordances. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holiday, A. (1988). Moral powers: Normative necessity in language and history. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published 1739.Google Scholar
  15. Kendler, H. (1999). The role of value in the world of psychology. The American Psychologist, 54, 828–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendler, H. (2002). Psychology and ethics: Interactions and conflicts. Philosophical Psychology, 15, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koffka, K. (1940). Problems in the psychology of art. In R. Bernheimer, R. Carpenter, K. Koffka, & M. C. Nahm (Eds.), Art: A Bryn Mawr symposium. New York: Oriole Editions. This edition published 1972.Google Scholar
  18. Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Köhler, W. (1944). Value and fact. The Journal of Philosophy, 41, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Köhler, W. (1959). The place of value in a world of facts. New York: Meridian Books. First published 1938.Google Scholar
  21. Lacey, H., & Schwartz, B. (1996). The formation and transformation of values. In W. O’Donohue & R. F. Kitchener (Eds.), The philosophy of psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. MacIntyre, A. (1985a). After virtue. London: Duckworth. 2nd ed. with postscript.Google Scholar
  23. Mackie, J. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  24. McDowell, J. (1981). Non-Cognitivism and Rule-Following. In S. M. Holtzman & C. M. Leich (Eds.), Wittgenstein: To follow a rule. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  25. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Murdoch, I. (1997c). The sovereignty of good over other concepts. In P. Conradi (Ed.), Existentialists and mystics: Writings on philosophy and literature. London: Penguin. First published 1967.Google Scholar
  27. Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quine, W. V. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Reader, S. (2000). New directions in ethics: Naturalisms, reasons and virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3, 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. B. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, D. N. (2002). Praise and blame: Moral realism and its applications. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37, 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruse, M. (1991). The significance of evolution. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Ryle, G. (1971a). The thinking of thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur’ doing? In Collected papers volume II: Collected essays 1929–1968. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Ryle, G. (1971b). Thinking and reflecting. In Collected papers volume II: Collected essays 1929–1968. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  38. Searle, J. (1967). How to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’. In P. Foot (Ed.), Theories of ethics (pp. 101–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Shotter, J. (1999). Vygotsky: The social negotiation of semiotic mediation. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments. Volume IV: Future directions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Siegel, H. (1996). Naturalism and the abandonment of normativity. In W. O’Donohue & R. F. Kitchener (Eds.), The philosophy of psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, L. (2006). Norms in human development. In L. Smith (Ed.), Norms in human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyUniversity of AalborgAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations