Final answer:
The fact-value distinction is an ethical philosophy concept that separates factual (descriptive) statements from value-based (evaluative) statements. Option c is correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept referred to as the fact-value distinction is a notion in ethical philosophy that differentiates between factual statements about the world, which describe what is (descriptive claims), and value-based statements, which prescribe how the world should be (evaluative claims).
This distinction is fundamental for understanding the nature of ethical judgments and how they differ from empirical observations. Arguments such as Hilary Putnam's suggest that even scientific reasoning incorporates values when choosing between theories based on their simplicity or coherence. Consequently, we must recognize that attributing a strict separation between facts and values oversimplifies a more complex relationship.
When considering the content of claims, descriptive claims are about how the world actually is and can be verified through observation or empirical data. For example, the statement 'the room has four chairs' describes a verifiable fact. On the other hand, evaluative claims involve judgments about how the world ought to be, like 'murder is wrong.' These are value-based statements that express ethical, aesthetic, or other forms of value judgments and are not purely factual.
The is-ought problem articulated by philosopher David Hume accentuates the difficulty in deriving what ought to be from what is. It suggests that one cannot directly infer normative statements (values) from descriptive statements (facts). Additionally, the naturalistic fallacy warns against defining the good in terms of natural properties, demonstrating another facet of the complex interplay between facts and values.
In summarizing, while some philosophers challenge the fact-value distinction, it remains a key conceptual tool in ethical philosophy, clarifying the ways we engage with the world through different kinds of reasoning.