In this essay, I define positive propositions, normative propositions and value judgements in order to highlight their differences and identify their connection to welfare economics. I demonstrate their relationship in detail using concepts like cost-benefit analysis and paternalism with two relevant policy examples: raising the minimum wage and imposing taxes on fattening foods. By the end, I attempt to show both sides of the arguments “for” and “against” these policies in the hopes of clarifying the meaning of value judgements, positive propositions and normative propositions.
To begin with, a value judgement is a view that cannot be proven to be true or false, and is, in essence, a person’s reflection on what is important to them. Of course, these values are subjective and they stem from a person’s choice of …show more content…
This positive proposition united with the value judgement that fairness is “good” would arrive at the conclusion (and normative proposition) that fattening foods should not be taxed. An additional value judgement that could lead to the opposition to this tax is the desirability for freedom. A government tax on fattening foods would certainly be a paternalistic policy, meaning the government would be limiting people’s freedom to buy these goods. Notably, though, it has been found that people do not always act in their best interest for a variety of reasons, whether it is due to a lack of information or a poor judgement of risk. This brings to mind key questions such as: should people be allowed to make their own mistakes? Or should they be “nudged” by the government into the “right” direction at the expense of complete freedom? There is no right or wrong answer to this, but each answer sheds light on each person’s value
To begin with, a value judgement is a view that cannot be proven to be true or false, and is, in essence, a person’s reflection on what is important to them. Of course, these values are subjective and they stem from a person’s choice of …show more content…
This positive proposition united with the value judgement that fairness is “good” would arrive at the conclusion (and normative proposition) that fattening foods should not be taxed. An additional value judgement that could lead to the opposition to this tax is the desirability for freedom. A government tax on fattening foods would certainly be a paternalistic policy, meaning the government would be limiting people’s freedom to buy these goods. Notably, though, it has been found that people do not always act in their best interest for a variety of reasons, whether it is due to a lack of information or a poor judgement of risk. This brings to mind key questions such as: should people be allowed to make their own mistakes? Or should they be “nudged” by the government into the “right” direction at the expense of complete freedom? There is no right or wrong answer to this, but each answer sheds light on each person’s value