IS and OUGHT

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

IS and OUGHT

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Much philosophy revolves around this question of ''is''
and ''ought''.. About what ''is'' and what ''ought'' to be.
This is especially true in regard to political philosophy.
Marx once said:

''The Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world,
(seen it as is) The point, however is to change it.''

To change the world from ''is'' to an ''ought''
The world ''ought'' to be..... Most philosophy has been descriptions,
which says ''The world is this'' but the point of philosophy, as Marx pointed
out, is an engagement with what ''ought'' to be, it is easy enough to describe
the world, literally anyone can describe the world, but who has the courage
and imagination enough to come up with the ''ought''?

What ''ought'' the world the world look like?

Think about the declaration of Independence,

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are
created equal"

and what is equality? In fact, equality and justice, are exactly
the same thing. To be just, is to be equal.. Justice is the equal treatment
of everyone....however, to be equal is not just an equality before the law,
or political equality, the concept of equality/justice must be extended to all
facets of life...going from ''is'' to ''ought''...

Now some might say, we cannot treat all equally because all people are
not equal, ''is'' and in fact, we can treat people equally even if they are not
''equal''... for example, do we treat people differently because they are
different height, or different hair color? No, of course not, what difference does
it make, that one man is 5ft 4 and another man is 6ft... not one iota...
or one man has black hair and another has blond hair?

So, why do we practice, what has been referred to as, entitlements?
People who are less fortunate, who have disabilities, and or/are helped/
equalized by quotas of some nature, why do we do that?

We have people who are equal in their nature, for example, most
people have all their senses, being able to see, hear, smell, touch
and taste.. that is a level of equality people have in having their senses...
let us say, we have someone who can't hear, they are not equal in
terms of having senses, and by not being equal, have extra challenges
to become equal... so, we give hearing impaired people extra help to
become equal to everyone else.. we bring people up to a standard,
not lower people down to a standard.. and we do this with poor people,
and sending the children of the poor to collage/university with the state's
funds.... we are trying to equalize people up to a level of standard, to equalize
people with local, state, or federal government help..

the fact is some people are poorer than others, that is an "is" and they
"ought" to be some level of standard for all people to be at and so we raise
those "poor" people to a minimal standard of living... the entitlement programs
are a means to raise people up, not lower the other classes down..
people are at a certain standard, which is poor, that "is" and by nature
of being human, everyone should be at a certain standard of being able
to afford the basic minimum of existence.. and we believe/accept that
all people/men "ought" to be at that minimum level of existence..
and so we engage in government action with programs as WIC, in
which the government pays for children and infants' food and necessities.
To raise up families and children to a certain level, a certain standard..

We have an "is" in which families are in a certain place, socially, economically,
politically and we hold that all families "ought" to be equal, socially,
economically and politically...the question of ''IS'' and "OUGHT" determine
our beliefs and actions, socially, politically and economically....

As my wife and I live at a certain level, we don't need help to be equal to our
neighbors.. socially, economically or politically....but not everyone is
as fortunate as we are...and to bring others to the level that we live in,
socially, politically and economically, I am ok with my taxes being used to
bring other families to a level of security that I enjoy... because everyone,
"all men/people are created equal" that means we all should enjoy roughly
the same standard of living, being able to gain the necessities of life,
to be able to know where my next meal is coming from, not to worry
about having a roof over our heads, to be able to properly educate
my children and to enjoy health care.. I hold these minimums are
not only acceptable for me, but they are acceptable for everyone,

"that all men/people are created equal"

to me that is an "ought", that everyone should have the same basic minimums
that I enjoy...

This is one way we can engage with the question of "IS" and "OUGHT",
and there are many, many ways we can engage with this question of
"IS'' and "OUGHT"

Kropotkin
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

The people here will tell you you're wrong.

They'll say that "is" and "ought" are the same thing. They will say that the problem of Hume's Guillotine has been solved long ago...by somebody...they don't know who...they can't say...but it happened...don't ask anymore...shawdup.

But you're not allowed to posit the difference Hume noted anymore. That's what they'll say.

Good luck changing their minds. You're going to need it.
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

This question of ''IS" and "OUGHT", dominates our thinking...
for example, let us explore the thinking of conservatives vs
liberals.. to be blunt, conservatives think in terms of
'IS" and liberals think in terms of "OUGHT"..

I have researched conservativism for decades...I have dozens of books
on conservatism and one of the fixed points of conservatism is, "IS"..
the conservative focuses on "IS" and not on ''OUGHT" for example
human beings are born into sin...''IS", that most people, are not
worth the trouble of existence, for they are greedy, lustful, angry,
hateful, and moreover, they are unable to change their basic instincts,
once an "evil" person is born, "evil" they shall stay their entire life within "evil" ...
that there is no personal change in a person, is a given within conservatives...
and people cannot change their "sinful" nature by their own actions..
a person born ''evil" is "evil" their entire lives and nothing can change that
in regard's to their own actions..

the liberal believes differently, yes, some are born ''evil" but we can change
our nature, we can engage in what "OUGHT" to be... we ''OUGHT" to be
decent, kind, charitable human beings.. and if we are not, we can
make a choice to change... and that is one of the fundamental differences
between the conservative and the liberal, this idea of choice...

I can make a choice to become something else.. I can try to chase or become
the "OUGHT", I "OUGHT" to be a kind, nice, loving, peaceful human being...
I have that choice..

When talking about the government, the conservatives holds that the government was,
is and always will be "evil" a burden, always trying to enslave human beings.. that is,
"IS" thinking.. but we can change the government... but Liberals hold that we
can engage in "OUGHT" thinking in which we try to change the government,
from "IS" to ''OUGHT" thinking... the government should, ''OUGHT" to
be engaged in creating kindness and peace in the society and state...

The conservative takes the role of government as being a force to keep
people honest and just, which is why the conservative loves the police and
armed forces to keep the people in line, whereas the liberal holds that the
role of government is to engage in allowing people to become who they are...

the conservative holds to the "IS", that people are fundamentally evil and
engage in "evil" actions, and the liberal holds that we should engage in
our ''OUGHT".. in the liberal thinking, we can always find room to improve
and become better, and that isn't possible in the conservative, "IS" thinking...

the conservative seeks to affirm their negative understanding of human beings,
and liberals seek to improve the nature of human beings, seeking the positive...

the conservative holds that certain actions/beliefs are by their nature "evil"
thus those who love the same sex, is anathema to a conservative..
they are born "evil" and must be punished...

whereas the liberal holds that if we love another, we should seek that love..
I am a long-time married man and I am ok with others seeking to become
who they are, be it gay or trans or binary or whatever... and the government
should be engaged in protecting their rights to become whoever they
want to become...the right to choice, the right to become who you are...

I am unable to claim the privilege of knowing if being gay is wrong or being
trans is wrong... I cannot find any grounds on which I can say, for certainty,
that this action is wrong or evil.. I can only say, we should be able to pursue
our "OUGHT" even if that ''OUGHT" is different from my ''OUGHT"...

I am just a man and as such, I cannot claim to be evolved enough to
proclaim that one is wrong in seeking their 'OUGHT".. I am simply
not in a position to claim such superiority that I can tell others
that their "OUGHT" isn't right or legal... and as such, I support
others in their pursuit of what they hold to be their "OUGHT"...

For me, the name of the game is change and what "OUGHT' we change into,
not what we are/is, but what we can become... and that is the name of
the game... what ''OUGHT' we become.. not what are we/is, but what
is possible for us to become...to pursue our '''OUGHT"

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:46 pm The people here will tell you you're wrong.

They'll say that "is" and "ought" are the same thing. They will say that the problem of Hume's Guillotine has been solved long ago...by somebody...they don't know who...they can't say...but it happened...don't ask anymore...shawdup.

But you're not allowed to posit the difference Hume noted anymore. That's what they'll say.

Good luck changing their minds. You're going to need it.
K: the failure lies in their lack of imagination.. to achieve your ''OUGHT" requires
one to be able to imagine what you want to become and most people who are
focused on "IS" simply don't have the imagination to pursue the ''OUGHT" instead
of the pursuit of the 'IS"...

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

the problem, one of, is that ''OUGHT" isn't derived from "IS"
the ''OUGHT" is separate from ''IS".... how do we connect two
words that are not connected? By which standard can we connect
the two words? ''IS'' is a separate and distinct word from ''OUGHT"

To say that the world is, is a different statement, from the world ought...

this solves the problem of "Hume's guillotine" they aren't the same thing,
'IS" and "OUGHT"...

You can say "IS" without saying "OUGHT" and you can say, "OUGHT" without
any reference to 'IS''

To continue this thought, as there is no linkage between
the statement, ''He is sad'' and the statement ''he ought to be happy''
unless, unless one connects the two... ''he is sad, but he ought to be
happy''....these two statements ''he is sad'' and ''he ought to be happy''
are two unconnected statements unless they are distinctly connected
in a statement...to connect the two statements is a cause and effect
error that Hume himself denied.. ''the sun will rise tomorrow'''
type of error... to connect ''he is sad'' with ''he ought to be happy''
is an error of assumption, it assumes facts not in evidence...
to say ''he ought to be happy'' has no connection to the statement
''he is sad''

Kropotkin
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:46 pm The people here will tell you you're wrong.

They'll say that "is" and "ought" are the same thing. They will say that the problem of Hume's Guillotine has been solved long ago...by somebody...they don't know who...they can't say...but it happened...don't ask anymore...shawdup.

But you're not allowed to posit the difference Hume noted anymore. That's what they'll say.

Good luck changing their minds. You're going to need it.
K: the failure lies in their lack of imagination.. to achieve your ''OUGHT" requires
one to be able to imagine what you want to become and most people who are
focused on "IS" simply don't have the imagination to pursue the ''OUGHT" instead
of the pursuit of the 'IS"...

Kropotkin
It's not so much that...these people have tons of imagination. (For one thing, they imagine that somebody has solved the IS-OUGHT for them.)

But some of them think bizarre things like that imagination produces reality. So whatever they feel "ought" to be is what "is," they think.

Some also disagree with Hume, and say that the natural world gives us morality inherently...a kind of "natural law" written into the IS of things.

Others argue that morality and reality are both nothing but "constructs."

You'll find they have a lot of different reasons why they think the problem has magically vaporized.
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:29 pm
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:46 pm The people here will tell you you're wrong.

They'll say that "is" and "ought" are the same thing. They will say that the problem of Hume's Guillotine has been solved long ago...by somebody...they don't know who...they can't say...but it happened...don't ask anymore...shawdup.

But you're not allowed to posit the difference Hume noted anymore. That's what they'll say.

Good luck changing their minds. You're going to need it.
K: the failure lies in their lack of imagination.. to achieve your ''OUGHT" requires
one to be able to imagine what you want to become and most people who are
focused on "IS" simply don't have the imagination to pursue the ''OUGHT" instead
of the pursuit of the 'IS"...

Kropotkin
It's not so much that...these people have tons of imagination. (For one thing, they imagine that somebody has solved the IS-OUGHT for them.)

But some of them think bizarre things like that imagination produces reality. So whatever they feel "ought" to be is what "is," they think.

Some also disagree with Hume, and say that the natural world gives us morality inherently...a kind of "natural law" written into the IS of things.

Others argue that morality and reality are both nothing but "constructs."

You'll find they have a lot of different reasons why they think the problem has magically vaporized.

K: that the "natural world give us morality inherently" is another false statement...
how do you connect the "natural world" with ethics? and what is the "natural world?"

one says, "he is sad" and "he ought to be happy" are not connected unless
we connect them in some fashion, but take the "natural world" and
"morality" how do we connect the two? By what means can we connect
the two? So, we might say, "in the natural world, lions treat each other
with respect". and how does that, assuming that is even true, how do
we connect the lion's behavior, with our own morality?

I see no way in which to connect the two statements...
and the real problem lies with the notion of the "natural world"..
what the hell is the "natural world?" it is a notion, thought, that
actually doesn't mean anything..... we often connect two distinct and
separate things that have absolutely no connection of any kind..
unless we ourselves make that connection...and I note that human beings
are often wrong in our making connections... what looks like two items
that are connected, are not.. and we make a false assumption...

and therein lies the problem, we often make false assumptions, not
realizing or not even caring that we have made an false assumption....
thus we find ourselves back with Nietzsche... we have beliefs, values,
understandings that are simply false assumptions that we were indoctrinated
within childhood, for example, that there is a god... that is simply an assumption,
and when are old enough, capable enough, we must "reevaluate" our values...
as Nietzsche said,

"it is not enough to have the courage of our values,
we must have the courage for an attack upon our values"

for most of our values are simply indoctrinated values given to
us by our family, state, society, church and we haven't had the
courage for a "reevaluation" of values to rid ourselves of values
that were indoctrinated into us by "education"....

the question of "IS" and 'OUGHT" is a question of what values we have,
what values were indoctrinated into us as children and what
values that we should, 'OUGHT" to hold as adults? I hold different
values as an adult, then I did as a child and why? Because I engaged
in a "reevaluation" of values as an adult... my current values are different
from the values I was "educated" with.. and my current values are, even now,
as a senior citizen, changing to become in tune with who I am...

and the question of "IS'' and ''OUGHT" are in part, what channels
my understanding of what values I hold and what values I "should"
'''OUGHT" to hold....

Kropotkin
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:54 pm K: that the "natural world give us morality inherently" is another false statement...
how do you connect the "natural world" with ethics? and what is the "natural world?"
You want me to answer for them? I guess I can try...but I don't believe it either.

They think that nature comes bundled with some sort of moral conclusion. You can see this line of argument on both sides of the gay issue, for example. Some people say, "It's unnatural." Some people respond, with Lady G., "I was born this way." Both of them want you to agree that, say, homosexuality is either permissible or impermissible on the basis of a particlar reading they're taking of what "nature wants," so to speak.

That a very mild example of what they have in mind. The basic concept is that they think they can "read" moral messages out of nature.
how do we connect the lion's behavior, with our own morality?
That's a good question. You'll have to ask them.

They often say that "survival of the fittest" is how we became the lovely, evolved things we are; but then they argue that Social Darwnism is immoral. How they manage both is a mystery to me.
...the real problem lies with the notion of the "natural world"..
Well, yes -- why is a tree "natural," but a skyscraper "unnatural"?

Don't they insist that mankind are "natural" creatures, entities solely produced by the same forces that make lions and trees? But if that's so, then everything a human being can do is "natural." There is no "unnatural" world.
...false assumptions that we were indoctrinated within childhood, for example, that there is a god...
Well, it's true that people can be "indoctrinated" in falsehoods. But they can also believe something that's true, but for "indoctrinatory" reasons. For example, if I believe in gravity "because my science teacher told me it's real," then I have been indoctrated into an irrational belief in something that just happens to be true.

So that one was "indoctrinated" into something doesn't really tell us whether that thing is true or not. "Indoctrination" is an indictment of HOW a belief was acquired, not necessarily of the belief itself.
"it is not enough to have the courage of our values,
we must have the courage for an attack upon our values"
Nietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values," other than by irrational use of force. The "ought" of our values doesn't appear magically along with the "is" that we happen to believe in some.
and the question of "IS'' and ''OUGHT" are in part, what channels
my understanding of what values I hold and what values I "should"
'''OUGHT" to hold....
And what do you mean, when you use the word "ought"?

You say there are some values you "ought" to hold: to whom do you owe this duty of belief? And how do you determine what you "owe" ("ought" is a contraction of "owe+it") to value?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:48 am
Nietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"
I can't see how values can be anything other than arbitrary.

Hello, IC, btw. :)
Last edited by Harbal on Sun Jul 17, 2022 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Iwannaplato »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:48 am
That's a good question. You'll have to ask them.

They often say that "survival of the fittest" is how we became the lovely, evolved things we are; but then they argue that Social Darwnism is immoral. How they manage both is a mystery to me.
Well, I'm not those guys either. But survival of the fittest is not really Darwinian but this idea/interpretation has tended to be more appealing to the right. Darwinism would be more like survival of those things that fit the environment, whatever it is like in that area and time. So, how does work with humans? Well, different animal (types) have different strategies or tendencies or inherited traits which lead to tendencies and animals of various types, personalities, food sources, temperments and social relationships have managed to survive so far.

So, social mammals have some broad things in common. Often both parents have something to do with protecting the young and raising them. Social mammals also develop interpersonal communication and support, though this varies wildly. There are groups. You can think of wolves or elephants as a couple of examples with similarities and differences. Primates also. They tend to function in groups and help each other. This gives them advantages. Other animals are loners and have different strategies.

Once you work in groups you need guidelines and rules, which can be come very moral-like even outside humans.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 10:10 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:48 am
That's a good question. You'll have to ask them.

They often say that "survival of the fittest" is how we became the lovely, evolved things we are; but then they argue that Social Darwnism is immoral. How they manage both is a mystery to me.
Well, I'm not those guys either. But survival of the fittest is not really Darwinian
It's Spencer, explaining Darwin, it's true: but Darwin approved of it. Darwin personally wrote, "The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient" However, Darwin was so taken with Spencer's catchy phrase that he did, in fact, use it in a later (1869) edition of his "The Origin of Species".
but this idea/interpretation has tended to be more appealing to the right.
Well, maybe to the Darwinians on the right, but certainly not the whole right. The religious right, for example, declare it an appalling idea.

But why it would be "wrong," per se, in a secular, Evolutionary world is not clear. Why would survival of the fittest (or whatever next-best thing we want to call it) be the rule for all evolution, including human evolution up to recent, modern humans, and then quit there? :shock: That would need some explaining -- particularly if humans are simply evolved mammals like all the rest.
So, social mammals have some broad things in common. Often both parents have something to do with protecting the young and raising them. Social mammals also develop interpersonal communication and support, though this varies wildly. There are groups. You can think of wolves or elephants as a couple of examples with similarities and differences. Primates also. They tend to function in groups and help each other. This gives them advantages. Other animals are loners and have different strategies.
All true; and yet a survival focus and instinct governs them all. Chimps, for example, are more sophisitcated in their methods than "lower" animals, but not a stitch less brutal. They steal, chew up the young, rape and rip their rivals limb from limb. And their cooperation is often exercised for no higher purpose than gaining the advantage to do just those very things. They live in groups, yes. But they aren't anything like "civil" or "moral" in their conduct.

And the billions of years we are assured they have had to "evolve" have failed to produce even one chimp work of art, one gorilla law code, or one bonobo sage...they have, in fact, nothing like a "civilization" at all.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:11 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:48 am
Nietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"
I can't see how values can be anything other than arbitrary.

Hello, IC, btw. :)
Hello again, Harbal...where have you been, old sock?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:15 pm Hello again, Harbal...where have you been, old sock?
I've been roaming about on the internet, but then I had a sudden desire to visit my old friends, so here I am.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Meanwhile...

Post by uwot »

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:14 pmChimps, for example, are more sophisitcated in their methods than "lower" animals, but not a stitch less brutal. They steal, chew up the young, rape and rip their rivals limb from limb.
Uh-huh. And humans don't?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:15 pm Hello again, Harbal...where have you been, old sock?
I've been roaming about on the internet, but then I had a sudden desire to visit my old friends, so here I am.
Did you find anything that was more fun than philosophizing?
Post Reply