Ought - IS Problem

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"

    *destroyed by humans via nuclear weapon of mass destruction and at present we have enough of such weapons to destroy earth to make in inhabitable for humans.
Surely no human [except the mentally ill] would want the Earth to be destroyed which would make a secular 'ought' an imperative based on universal consensus.

From the above grounds we can establish a heirarchy of oughts for the purpose of morality.
Therefore we do not need a God to enforce moral duties based on threats of perdition and hellfire.

Views?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The idea of 'ought' is usually referred to morality and ethics.

However I noted there are empirical oughts.
For example the standardization of the units of measurements, in terms of weight, length, etc. are in a way 'ought'.

A kilogram ought to be the same as an universally agreed standard, i.e.
  • In 1879 a cylinder of platinum-iridium, the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK) became the standard of the unit of mass for the metric system, and remained so until May 20, 2019,[1] making the kilogram the last of the metric base units to be defined by a physical artefact.
    The new definition was approved by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) on November 16, 2018.[3] Physical standard masses such as the IPK and its replicas still serve as secondary standards.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
The approach in standardization of other units of measurements are the same, i.e. on a universal agreed standard.

Therefore why can't we do the above for morality and ethics based on sound justifications and thus doing away with God [illusory] imposed moral laws.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Impenitent »

a kilogram IS x by definition

any term IS x by definition

they are not "oughts"

logical "moralist" positivism doesn't work

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Impenitent wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:16 pm a kilogram IS x by definition

any term IS x by definition

they are not "oughts"

logical "moralist" positivism doesn't work

-Imp
You missed the point!

Before the new standard, the standard weight of one Kilogram was established as;
  • In 1879 a cylinder of platinum-iridium, the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK) became the standard of the unit of mass for the metric system, and remained so until May 20, 2019
    -wiki
Image

So the Kilogram then is the equivalent weight of that object.

But that 'is" became the 'ought' every subsequent kilogram should be defined and compared to.

Thus if you buy a kilo of apples, that kilo ought to be the same weight as that object in the picture above [a cylinder of platinum-iridium] is.

To confirm that 'ought' is 'is' [the standardize kilo] you can place that object on one side of a balance and the apples [supposedly 1 kilo] on the other side and they should balance perfectly.

From the above it is from "is" that we establish the "ought" as a guide for all measurements of one kilogram.

Thus it is possible to extract an "ought" from "is" for practical applications.


Note the evolution of the measurement of length, example the 'foot'.
Long ago, the length of a foot was established as an 'ought' from what "is" the length on a king.
This 'is" from the actual foot [is] of a king became the 'ought' of what a 'foot' [length] should [ought] to be throughout the kingdom.

The above demonstrated how 'ought' is derived from 'is' and applied in practice.
Therefore "ought" is possible from "is."

It is easier to see the above in physical measurements.

As for morality, it is a bit more complex.
But the principles are the same as the above examples.
To establish absolute moral rules is complex but it is possible as I had shown in the other thread;
OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245


Views?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:28 am There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
Let's tell the story secularly, and see if that's true.

We humans were produced by a gigantic cosmic explosion called "the Big Bang." This "Big Bang," though, was an accident, not the deliberate production of a God. Good so far?

Okay. Now, somehow (and we don't have any idea how) the fragment that came out of this Big Bang, the universe, had a bit on which a strange thing called "life" appeared. Again, this was not by design of God; it was only an accident. Still good?

Okay. Now, some of this "life" became what we call "human," through a process that somehow started, called "evolution." But this process too was merely an accident -- no God produced or oversaw it. Still good?

The way evolution worked was this: some species continued, because they survived a hostile environment. They did this by being the "fittest." But by "fittest" we only mean that they just happened to gain some advantage, not that a God gave them any. Still with me?

Some species died out entirely. It simply turned out that they were not equipped to survive. But this cannot be said to be any kind of tragedy, because this is just how reality works: things that die, die. Things that live, live. There's no rightness or wrongness to what lives or what dies...there's only the harsh fact of survival of the fittest.

Now, let us pause there: is there any step in that story that you would say is not true? Let's be really, really sure, before we end the story. So far, so good?

Finally, the human race died out. They did this because they destroyed themselves. This shows that they were not fit to survive. And there is nobody to lament their passing, and no reason they should not have died. They may have thought they were "fit," but they were not, as it turned out. And the indifferent universe just rolled on as it has since the Big Bang, heading down to heat death, when the ultimate fate of all "life" in the universe, and all activity in it, is to be forever at zero. And this state is to last forever.

Now: how do you get out of that story that human beings morally "ought" to have done anything? Remember that you cannot assume that there was anything "wrong" with any species being eliminated from this impersonal tale of accident and evolution -- things just "happen," and there's no failure of some "plan" if human beings are one of the eliminated species. Further, there's no special importance assignable to the Earth, or to human life -- like all things in the universe, these are just accidental byproducts of a a cosmic explosion. And their passing is of no special status.

Now, how do you get morals out of that? :shock:
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:11 am
Impenitent wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:16 pm a kilogram IS x by definition

any term IS x by definition

they are not "oughts"

logical "moralist" positivism doesn't work

-Imp
You missed the point!

Before the new standard, the standard weight of one Kilogram was established as;
  • In 1879 a cylinder of platinum-iridium, the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK) became the standard of the unit of mass for the metric system, and remained so until May 20, 2019
    -wiki
Image

So the Kilogram then is the equivalent weight of that object.

But that 'is" became the 'ought' every subsequent kilogram should be defined and compared to.

Thus if you buy a kilo of apples, that kilo ought to be the same weight as that object in the picture above [a cylinder of platinum-iridium] is.

To confirm that 'ought' is 'is' [the standardize kilo] you can place that object on one side of a balance and the apples [supposedly 1 kilo] on the other side and they should balance perfectly.

From the above it is from "is" that we establish the "ought" as a guide for all measurements of one kilogram.

Thus it is possible to extract an "ought" from "is" for practical applications.


Note the evolution of the measurement of length, example the 'foot'.
Long ago, the length of a foot was established as an 'ought' from what "is" the length on a king.
This 'is" from the actual foot [is] of a king became the 'ought' of what a 'foot' [length] should [ought] to be throughout the kingdom.

The above demonstrated how 'ought' is derived from 'is' and applied in practice.
Therefore "ought" is possible from "is."

It is easier to see the above in physical measurements.

As for morality, it is a bit more complex.
But the principles are the same as the above examples.
To establish absolute moral rules is complex but it is possible as I had shown in the other thread;
OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245


Views?
But establishing ONE moral rule for EVERY one was a very easy and simple thing to do..

Just do what ought to be done from what is the right thing to do for EVERY one.

It really does not get much more simpler and easier than that.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:28 am There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
But this ought comes from God anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmLet's tell the story secularly, and see if that's true.

We humans were produced by a gigantic cosmic explosion called "the Big Bang."
Wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmThis "Big Bang," though, was an accident, not the deliberate production of a God. Good so far?
In a sense, wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmOkay. Now, somehow (and we don't have any idea how) the fragment that came out of this Big Bang, the universe, had a bit on which a strange thing called "life" appeared. Again, this was not by design of God; it was only an accident. Still good?
No, because it is partly wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmOkay. Now, some of this "life" became what we call "human," through a process that somehow started, called "evolution." But this process too was merely an accident -- no God produced or oversaw it. Still good?
No, this is wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmThe way evolution worked was this: some species continued, because they survived a hostile environment. They did this by being the "fittest." But by "fittest" we only mean that they just happened to gain some advantage, not that a God gave them any. Still with me?
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmSome species died out entirely. It simply turned out that they were not equipped to survive. But this cannot be said to be any kind of tragedy, because this is just how reality works: things that die, die. Things that live, live. There's no rightness or wrongness to what lives or what dies...there's only the harsh fact of survival of the fittest.


All right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmNow, let us pause there: is there any step in that story that you would say is not true? Let's be really, really sure, before we end the story. So far, so good?
No.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmFinally, the human race died out. They did this because they destroyed themselves. This shows that they were not fit to survive. And there is nobody to lament their passing, and no reason they should not have died.
But there is a reason.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmThey may have thought they were "fit," but they were not, as it turned out. And the indifferent universe just rolled on as it has since the Big Bang, heading down to heat death, when the ultimate fate of all "life" in the universe, and all activity in it, is to be forever at zero. And this state is to last forever.
No. Another species will evolve with intelligence.

If, however, that species learns to utilise that intelligence to its full potential, next time, or not use it and wipe themselves out also, then we will just have to wait and SEE.

But, if, as planned, from what I CAN tell, then the human species will not wipe itself out, and will create what is going to eventually happen anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmNow: how do you get out of that story that human beings morally "ought" to have done anything?
Why would any one want to get out of what they ought to be doing anyway?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pm Remember that you cannot assume that there was anything "wrong" with any species being eliminated from this impersonal tale of accident and evolution -- things just "happen," and there's no failure of some "plan" if human beings are one of the eliminated species.
But ARE 'you', human beings, part of the plan of being eliminated, through you own doing, or part of the plan of continuing on?

It would seem a shame that you human beings have made it this far, and obviously have the intelligence to move forward in a Truly meaningful and purposeful way, to then and only go and wipe yourselves out just for the sake of pieces of paper with numbers on them and because you just disagree one some things. But, if that is the way you want to go, then so be it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmFurther, there's no special importance assignable to the Earth, or to human life --
Considering what you human beings KNOW about the Universe, when this is written, and how much more different earth is, and you are, from the rest of the Universe, then that might suggest that there is actually some sort of assigned importance to you and your home in the scheme of things.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmlike all things in the universe, these are just accidental byproducts of a a cosmic explosion.
In a sense yes.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmAnd their passing is of no special status.
No, not really.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pmNow, how do you get morals out of that? :shock:
Easy. Just find what it IS that EVERY one agrees with. It is very simple really.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:28 am There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
Let's tell the story secularly, and see if that's true.

We humans were produced by a gigantic cosmic explosion called "the Big Bang." This "Big Bang," though, was an accident, not the deliberate production of a God. Good so far?

Okay. Now, somehow (and we don't have any idea how) the fragment that came out of this Big Bang, the universe, had a bit on which a strange thing called "life" appeared. Again, this was not by design of God; it was only an accident. Still good?

Okay. Now, some of this "life" became what we call "human," through a process that somehow started, called "evolution." But this process too was merely an accident -- no God produced or oversaw it. Still good?

The way evolution worked was this: some species continued, because they survived a hostile environment. They did this by being the "fittest." But by "fittest" we only mean that they just happened to gain some advantage, not that a God gave them any. Still with me?

Some species died out entirely. It simply turned out that they were not equipped to survive. But this cannot be said to be any kind of tragedy, because this is just how reality works: things that die, die. Things that live, live. There's no rightness or wrongness to what lives or what dies...there's only the harsh fact of survival of the fittest.

Now, let us pause there: is there any step in that story that you would say is not true? Let's be really, really sure, before we end the story. So far, so good?

Finally, the human race died out. They did this because they destroyed themselves. This shows that they were not fit to survive. And there is nobody to lament their passing, and no reason they should not have died. They may have thought they were "fit," but they were not, as it turned out. And the indifferent universe just rolled on as it has since the Big Bang, heading down to heat death, when the ultimate fate of all "life" in the universe, and all activity in it, is to be forever at zero. And this state is to last forever.

Now: how do you get out of that story that human beings morally "ought" to have done anything? Remember that you cannot assume that there was anything "wrong" with any species being eliminated from this impersonal tale of accident and evolution -- things just "happen," and there's no failure of some "plan" if human beings are one of the eliminated species. Further, there's no special importance assignable to the Earth, or to human life -- like all things in the universe, these are just accidental byproducts of a a cosmic explosion. And their passing is of no special status.

Now, how do you get morals out of that? :shock:
Noted your point but I have my own explanation;

It is natural Planet Earth will one day orbit inward towards the Sun and the human species will be extinct unless humans can get to another planet in time -A.
Even if A is possible, eventually the Sun [limited in power] of our Solar System will die just like so many stars that are theorized in astronomy. Then the human species will be extinct.

In the secular perspective, there is no right or wrong to the above.
But if we bring in the theological, then God is evil in bringing about the above or doing nothing to prevent it. Thus why should we bother with theological moral models of the present which in the future will bring more harm than good.

The reality is while humans are alive till the above inevitable eventuality, there ought to be 'ought' to facilitate survival towards the most optimal levels.
It is obvious humans ought not to jump from a cliff unaided. There are a million 'ought' that humans ought not do do or ought to do.
I have given example of how we establish 'ought' in terms of absolute secular standards like the universal Kilogram and it is the same for other units of measurements to facilitate practical life.

Thus despite no ultimate right or wrong - given current knowledge, the human species will certainly be extinct in time, humans are evolved to strive to survive at all costs.
It is this 'at all costs' we need some sort of effective moral and ethics system to optimize survival for all humans.
To be effective, such a moral and ethics system must be imputed with unenforceable secular absolute moral rules as only a guide.

I have demonstrated in the other thread how secular absolute moral rules can be established as guides.

Note my point below of "a spontaneous emergence of universality" without a need for a God.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:53 pm But establishing ONE moral rule for EVERY one was a very easy and simple thing to do..

Just do what ought to be done from what is the right thing to do for EVERY one.

It really does not get much more simpler and easier than that.
Your above is too short-sighted.
It is not the establishing of one moral rule FOR everyone from outside or externally.

The strategy is to ensure that EVERY one establish their own absolute moral rule of good for themselves internally as guide, which will be the same as everyone's else absolute moral rule.

Note Kant Categorical Imperative No. 1 of 5;
  • Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
that is;
  • Act only according to that [your own] maxim [established by yourself] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law [as established by other selves on their own].
In this approach, there is no question of external enforcement by laws established by others, the individual will be his own law-maker, enforcer, judge, jury and executioner within himself culminating as same with everyone else, thus a spontaneous emergence of universality.

That would be a moral skill that need to be developed within the individual. It is not easy but feasible in the future.

If you are stuck in the current state, obviously the above is impossible. Actually you are stuck with a narrow and shallow mind, thus not likely to project any possibility of what I proposed.

With the evident positive trend at present, what I proposed is very possible if one think wider and deeper philosophically into the future and initiating the process in the present.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:28 am There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
Let's tell the story secularly, and see if that's true.

We humans were produced by a gigantic cosmic explosion called "the Big Bang." This "Big Bang," though, was an accident, not the deliberate production of a God. Good so far?

Okay. Now, somehow (and we don't have any idea how) the fragment that came out of this Big Bang, the universe, had a bit on which a strange thing called "life" appeared. Again, this was not by design of God; it was only an accident. Still good?

Okay. Now, some of this "life" became what we call "human," through a process that somehow started, called "evolution." But this process too was merely an accident -- no God produced or oversaw it. Still good?

The way evolution worked was this: some species continued, because they survived a hostile environment. They did this by being the "fittest." But by "fittest" we only mean that they just happened to gain some advantage, not that a God gave them any. Still with me?

Some species died out entirely. It simply turned out that they were not equipped to survive. But this cannot be said to be any kind of tragedy, because this is just how reality works: things that die, die. Things that live, live. There's no rightness or wrongness to what lives or what dies...there's only the harsh fact of survival of the fittest.

Now, let us pause there: is there any step in that story that you would say is not true? Let's be really, really sure, before we end the story. So far, so good?

Finally, the human race died out. They did this because they destroyed themselves. This shows that they were not fit to survive. And there is nobody to lament their passing, and no reason they should not have died. They may have thought they were "fit," but they were not, as it turned out. And the indifferent universe just rolled on as it has since the Big Bang, heading down to heat death, when the ultimate fate of all "life" in the universe, and all activity in it, is to be forever at zero. And this state is to last forever.

Now: how do you get out of that story that human beings morally "ought" to have done anything? Remember that you cannot assume that there was anything "wrong" with any species being eliminated from this impersonal tale of accident and evolution -- things just "happen," and there's no failure of some "plan" if human beings are one of the eliminated species. Further, there's no special importance assignable to the Earth, or to human life -- like all things in the universe, these are just accidental byproducts of a a cosmic explosion. And their passing is of no special status.

Now, how do you get morals out of that? :shock:
Noted your point but I have my own explanation;

It is natural Planet Earth will one day orbit inward towards the Sun and the human species will be extinct unless humans can get to another planet in time -A.
Even if A is possible, eventually the Sun [limited in power] of our Solar System will die just like so many stars that are theorized in astronomy. Then the human species will be extinct.

In the secular perspective, there is no right or wrong to the above.
That's the point. There's no morality concerned in the question of human survival, from a secular perspective. Nothing in the indifferent universe exists to say that we have a "duty" to avoid it.

And in any case, you and I both will be long dead when it happens. And since there is no objective moral duty in this (Godless view of the) world, we can't possibly be "wrong" not to take all the advantages we have while we are alive. And if that means we hand over this world to the next generation or to some subsequent generation in poor condition, there's nobody and nothing to say we can't -- or shouldn't.
But if we bring in the theological, then God is evil in bringing about the above or doing nothing to prevent it.

This isn't relevant to the question of whether or not we can get from a secular "is" to a secular "ought," of course. For even if it were true, it would only prove that some OTHER worldviews were not capable of grounding morality, not that the secular one WAS.

However, in point of fact, it isn't true. In the first place, we do not know that it is God's doing that our situation is being "brought about"; for if we have freedom to choose, it's much easier to say that WE are the obvious cause of the problem. But secondly, we do not know (from a secular perspective) that God is "doing nothing to prevent it," since, as secular thinkers only, we do not know what the present doings of God are. In fact, from a secular perspective, we'd be obliged to think God had no doings at all...hence we'd be in no rational position to accuse Him of any dereliction of duty at all.
The reality is while humans are alive till the above inevitable eventuality, there ought to be 'ought' to facilitate survival towards the most optimal levels.
Perhaps there "ought" to be, in some vague sense no secular perspective can explain. But there also isn't such an "ought" from any secular perspective. It's like the famous adage, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride," meaning that secularists may WANT there to be an "ought," but that just won't make it so.
Thus despite no ultimate right or wrong - given current knowledge, the human species will certainly be extinct in time, humans are evolved to strive to survive at all costs.
Well, according to the Darwinian story, so is every living organism. But many of them fail, die and disappear forever. And from a Darwinian perspective, the fact that they die is no tragedy...it's just proof that they were not "fit" to "survive" in the first place.

Meanwhile, there is no duty, from a Darwinian perspective, for you to assure my survival, let alone us both to assure the survival of coming generations. Our drive to survive is ours alone...and to give up our own chances at survival would just prove that we too were "unfit" members of our own species, doomed to be removed by the process of Natural Selection from our own herd.

I don't think either of us is willing to turn out to be that, are we?
It is this 'at all costs' we need some sort of effective moral and ethics system to optimize survival for all humans.
Not at all.

You don't need to see me survive, and I don't need you to do so. I perhaps need somebody to survive, but only the people relevant to my own survival; and the same is true for you. When push comes to shove, everybody has less right, from a secular perspective, to survive than I do, or from your perspective, than you do. Survival is about keeping ourselves alive, not about sacrificing ourselves to some "good of others" said to exist in the future. For you and I will not be around to see that future anyway.
To be effective, such a moral and ethics system must be imputed with unenforceable secular absolute moral rules as only a guide.
Actually, this will render them completely ineffective. Since they are "unenforceable," and "only a guide," I have no duty -- and not even a fear -- that compels me to regard them as "absolute."

The bottom line of all this is exactly what you've suggested above: "In the secular perspective, there is no right or wrong to the above."

Yes, indeed.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:01 am
Thus despite no ultimate right or wrong - given current knowledge, the human species will certainly be extinct in time, humans are evolved to strive to survive at all costs.
Well, according to the Darwinian story, so is every living organism. But many of them fail, die and disappear forever. And from a Darwinian perspective, the fact that they die is no tragedy...it's just proof that they were not "fit" to "survive" in the first place.

Meanwhile, there is no duty, from a Darwinian perspective, for you to assure my survival, let alone us both to assure the survival of coming generations. Our drive to survive is ours alone...and to give up our own chances at survival would just prove that we too were "unfit" members of our own species, doomed to be removed by the process of Natural Selection from our own herd.

I don't think either of us is willing to turn out to be that, are we?
There is no need for me to refer to Darwin in this case.

We have evidences humans are evolving with empathy and compassion for others from ordinary experiences and observations. This is supported objectively by mirror neurons which exist only in the higher animals, primate and in larger numbers in human beings.

Do you know how mirror neurons work?
Mirror neurons work like this;
When a person see, understands and realized the pains in others, their mirror neurons will spontaneously trigger the same pain [mirrored] in them [they have no control over this], and they will feel similar pain, thus invoking a sense of empathy.
Thus to ensure one's spontaneous pains are relieved, one is triggered to empathize [no conscious control over this] with the other sufferers and made attempt to minimize their pains, physical or mental.

Thus for a person with very active mirror neurons, whatever sufferings or potential threat to you will be felt by the other person.
Thus your survival and well being will be spontaneously a concern for a person with very active mirror neurons.
Thus this is an evolve inherent inbuilt 'duty' that is activated in a person with more active mirror neurons.

Whether one like it or not, the mirror neurons appeared and is inherent within the human species and some people has higher active mirror neurons thus more compassionate with greater empathy for others.

However the trend is the growth of mirror neurons are expanding fast within the average person. This is evident by the increasing empathy by many for others.
Note the current and activity of climate change that is expressed by so many people all over the world, e.g. the UN Climate Summit, etc.
Many more people are protesting and calling for an end to war as compared to the past.
There are many more examples that support how the growth and activation of mirror neurons within the average human brain has improved on the moral state of humanity of the present as compared to the past. Note chattel slavery for example.

The above is thus an inherent evolving 'duty.'
I believed you are looking for something that is pre-programmed kind of duty, such do not exists. They only exist if they are religious duty to be good.
I would not called it a duty per se, but it is naturally evolving for the moral good of all. The unfortunate point is the atmosphere of evil at present is overwhelming the good effects of the mirror neurons. But hidden with all the glaring evil acts, the good driven by the mirror neurons are slowly evolving progressively.

The whole process involve a complex set of element and processes but mirror neurons would be the critical elements.

However, what we need is to establish an effective model to expedite the process, which will include imputing secular absolute moral rules 'ought' into the model and system.
If you are familiar with effective strategic planning and problem-solving techniques you will note absolute secular ought[s] are imperative as guides.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:01 am
It is this 'at all costs' we need some sort of effective moral and ethics system to optimize survival for all humans.
Not at all.

You don't need to see me survive, and I don't need you to do so. I perhaps need somebody to survive, but only the people relevant to my own survival; and the same is true for you. When push comes to shove, everybody has less right, from a secular perspective, to survive than I do, or from your perspective, than you do. Survival is about keeping ourselves alive, not about sacrificing ourselves to some "good of others" said to exist in the future. For you and I will not be around to see that future anyway.
If my mirror neurons and moral state is active and efficient, I will spontaneously be triggered with pain if there is a threat to your survival.
In the event of a threat to your survival and if I don't show concern it will be more painful for me as this is triggered spontaneously and not deliberately. In a way I have no choice but to show concern for your survival.

"When push comes to shove" that would be a different scenario that warrant a different discussion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

The is-ought barrier is insuperable, because factual and moral assertions have completely different functions. A factual assertion claims something about reality that may or may not be the case - so the assertion is (classically) true or false, independent from opinion. By contrast, a moral assertion expresses a moral opinion, so it can't be independent from opinion, and it can't be factually true or false.

It follows that, just as the source of a factual assertion has no bearing on its truth-value - because that is independent of opinion - so a moral assertion has no truth-value, regardless of its source - because it can only express an opinion. Morality is subjective - we have to work it out for ourselves - and there can be no factual, objective court of appeal. To conclude that moral relativism or nihilism is all that's left us is to have misunderstood the nature of morality in the first place.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:55 am We have evidences humans are evolving with empathy and compassion for others from ordinary experiences and observations.
The presence of mirror neurons counts for nothing, in this question. It's an "is" that has no "ought." It might well be that empathy is a liability, not an asset to survival...which is all Evolutionism knows about.

Anyway, you yourself observe that...
The unfortunate point is the atmosphere of evil at present is overwhelming the good effects of the mirror neurons.
...which means you're trying to prophesy the future, when you say you hope that this is changing; but empirical evidence is against that hope.
Note chattel slavery for example.
You mean I should note that there are more slaves in the world today (around 40.3 m) than at any time in history? Why would observing that help your case? It would suggest the opposite, actually.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ought - IS Problem

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:28 am There is another thread on this similar issue, but I want to highlight this because the argument is very glaring.

I agree with Hume's argument that is no factual 'ought' from factual "is".
The above is purely epistemological and has no substantial practical value.

Theists argued no [a]theist can bring about an 'ought' in terms of morality, other than an omnipotent God.

However I believe there is at least a secular 'ought' that be inferred from "i" which has practical value, i.e.
  • "No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
Let's tell the story secularly, and see if that's true.

We humans were produced by a gigantic cosmic explosion called "the Big Bang." This "Big Bang," though, was an accident, not the deliberate production of a God. Good so far?

Okay. Now, somehow (and we don't have any idea how) the fragment that came out of this Big Bang, the universe, had a bit on which a strange thing called "life" appeared. Again, this was not by design of God; it was only an accident. Still good?

Okay. Now, some of this "life" became what we call "human," through a process that somehow started, called "evolution." But this process too was merely an accident -- no God produced or oversaw it. Still good?

The way evolution worked was this: some species continued, because they survived a hostile environment. They did this by being the "fittest." But by "fittest" we only mean that they just happened to gain some advantage, not that a God gave them any. Still with me?

Some species died out entirely. It simply turned out that they were not equipped to survive. But this cannot be said to be any kind of tragedy, because this is just how reality works: things that die, die. Things that live, live. There's no rightness or wrongness to what lives or what dies...there's only the harsh fact of survival of the fittest.

Now, let us pause there: is there any step in that story that you would say is not true? Let's be really, really sure, before we end the story. So far, so good?

Finally, the human race died out. They did this because they destroyed themselves. This shows that they were not fit to survive. And there is nobody to lament their passing, and no reason they should not have died. They may have thought they were "fit," but they were not, as it turned out. And the indifferent universe just rolled on as it has since the Big Bang, heading down to heat death, when the ultimate fate of all "life" in the universe, and all activity in it, is to be forever at zero. And this state is to last forever.

Now: how do you get out of that story that human beings morally "ought" to have done anything? Remember that you cannot assume that there was anything "wrong" with any species being eliminated from this impersonal tale of accident and evolution -- things just "happen," and there's no failure of some "plan" if human beings are one of the eliminated species. Further, there's no special importance assignable to the Earth, or to human life -- like all things in the universe, these are just accidental byproducts of a a cosmic explosion. And their passing is of no special status.

Now, how do you get morals out of that? :shock:
Noted your point but I have my own explanation;

It is natural Planet Earth will one day orbit inward towards the Sun and the human species will be extinct unless humans can get to another planet in time -A.
Even if A is possible, eventually the Sun [limited in power] of our Solar System will die just like so many stars that are theorized in astronomy. Then the human species will be extinct.
Not necessarily so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amIn the secular perspective, there is no right or wrong to the above.
But if we bring in the theological, then God is evil in bringing about the above or doing nothing to prevent it.
Why do you think that God thinks that 'you', human beings, are somewhat special?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amThus why should we bother with theological moral models of the present which in the future will bring more harm than good.
Why do you assume such a thing?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amThe reality is while humans are alive till the above inevitable eventuality, there ought to be 'ought' to facilitate survival towards the most optimal levels.
It is obvious humans ought not to jump from a cliff unaided. There are a million 'ought' that humans ought not do do or ought to do.
I have given example of how we establish 'ought' in terms of absolute secular standards like the universal Kilogram and it is the same for other units of measurements to facilitate practical life.
Lol
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amThus despite no ultimate right or wrong - given current knowledge,
But with the current knowledge, when this is written, there IS an ultimate right and wrong. Just because you have not yet seen this knowledge, this does NOT mean that that this knowledge does currently exist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 am the human species will certainly be extinct in time, humans are evolved to strive to survive at all costs.
It is this 'at all costs' we need some sort of effective moral and ethics system to optimize survival for all humans.
The contradictions here is striking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amTo be effective, such a moral and ethics system must be imputed with unenforceable secular absolute moral rules as only a guide.

I have demonstrated in the other thread how secular absolute moral rules can be established as guides.
But your way would never work.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:43 amNote my point below of "a spontaneous emergence of universality" without a need for a God.
Post Reply