Can an ‘Ought’ be Derived from an ‘Is’?

[Philosophy Now]

Philippa Foot says it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/130/Can_an_Ought_be_Derived_from_an_Is

[Impenitent]

one ought to know better

-Imp

[A_Seagull]

Philippa Foot says it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/130/Ca ... from_an_Is

It rather depends upon what 'ought' means. Perhaps you could set it as a 'question of the month' in PN..

[Gary Childress]

Philippa Foot says it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/130/Ca ... from_an_Is

Interesting article and an incredibly convincing solution to the "ought"/"is" problem.

I'm sort of curious, though, what would be an example in application of a hypothetical imperative giving us a sound conclusion as to what we "ought" to do. Take the example of finding a wallet on the ground with an ID and $50 in it. Does a hypothetical imperative tell us what we "ought" to do with that wallet? Doesn't it depend on how the question is staged, for example: "If I am poor and want to have an extra $50 to pay for my groceries that week, then I ought to keep the $50 and not turn it into the rightful owner", right? And yet, don't our moral sensibilities or whatever you want to call them, tend to tell us that we "ought" to turn the wallet in to the rightful owner along with the $50?

I'm not entirely seeing how hypothetical imperatives bridge the gap between "ought" and "is" in a way that would necessarily correspond with what might satisfy "traditional" (or instinctual--or whatever we should call it) moral sentiments.

[-1-]

Filippa Foot categorically denies the existence of morality, or ethics.

To her "should" is equivalent to "ought".

This is a false proposition, and can only be right if one denies the existence of morality.

"What should I do to pass my exam?" is a question involving "should" but at the same time it would not work with "ought", semantically.

"How much of my time ought I to spend with my children" is a question which begs "ought", but also works with "should".

The problem and the solution to it is the elasticity of the language by the erasure of finer distinctions between limitations of meanings and nuances of words.

In today's vernacular, "ought" and "should" are interchangeable in moral dilemmas. But that is the result of the bastardization of both of the words, "should" and "ought".

Foot falls into the trap of not noticing this equivalency of place to use these two words. They ought not to be equivalent; they should be different, used in different situations, each to its own. Sadly, the language erased the difference, and we are poorer for it.

[-1-]

Further thoughts built on my previous post:

"Should" is something that is developed from "is".

"Ought" is not something which is developed from "is".

Therefore since Foot hopelessly and fatally confuses the proper use of the two words, "should" and "ought", she declares that this problem is not to be dealt with.

I say the relationship between "ought" and "is" is not trivial, it is very valid and important. We need to further explore the relationship, while keeping in mind that "should" and "ought" are separate, non-interchangeable concepts or verbs.

[-1-]

Further to my thoughts on the previous two posts, a beginning of the inquiry into the differences of "should" and "ought" and into the relationship of "ought" and "is" could be as follows:

"He should have pulled the switch to stop the train" is a factual "should" (opposed to a moral "ought"), if the train's not stopping caused damage. The test to decide this, is to consider that stopping the train is what a normal person would do under most circumstances. That is, an "is" situation is paralelled: "A normal person stops the train to prevent damage." This is a nominative truth, accepted by almost all. Nominative, therefore belonging to the realm of "is".

"My daughter, you ought to have returned the fat wallet you found on the street to its proper owner, or you at least ought to have handed it in to a police person", is NOT a call to an action which all, or even most of us would do. Not all of us automatically turn in a fat wallet. A lot of us do, and a lot of us keep it, or the contents of it.

This is a situation where a moral action is called for. The moral action is invoked by the morally acting person sacrificing some benefit to herself; that benefit being the monetary value of the contents of the wallet. The benefit sacrificed, the issue becomes a moral issue.

So why does this become an "ought" instead of a "should"? Because it is not automatically a true statement that the individual and all others benefit from the action. If you stop the train before it causes damage, nobody sacrifices anything. If you return the wallet, you sacrifice your financial upswing; if you do not return the wallet, you sacrifice your own view of yourself as a moral person. A decision has to be made, and the decision, along with the nature of sacrificing some of the self's well-being, creates a situation where not everyone will act the same way; the action is dependent on the decision, it is not a nominative-strength action, the action is pending on decisions, therefore it is best expressed with a directional subjective statement, which "ought" is precisely for.