OUGHT from IS is Possible

[Veritas Aequitas]

No I have not advocated ANY moral system. I was staying on the topic, which includes two concepts (is and ought), which you have failed to understand.

You are jumping to conclusion.
I understand Hume's no "ought" from "is."
But I had argued Hume's "ought" from "is" is obvious and confined to the rationalism versus empiricism dichotomy.

You are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is."
It is obvious black cannot be white.
"Is" and 'ought' are in different philosophical realms from a dualistic perspective.
But there are alternative views to the above.

It was Kant who woke up from his dogmatic slumber [rationalism dogmatism], to abandon his dogmatic rationalism and went one step deeper to reconcile "ought" with "is" for pragmatic reason and proposed his System Approach to morality and ethics.

Here is one clue to the above point where Kant reconciled 'ought' to 'is';

• No duality of Is and Ought can be found in Kant's philosophy for the very simple reason that, for Kant, the moral norm (the moral Ought, the moral law) emanates from reason in its function as practical reason, the very same reason whose function it is to know what is.
  For Kant says explicitly in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals that practical reason, the moral legislator, is fundamentally the same as theoretical reason: ‘I require of a critical examination of a pure practical reason, if it is to be complete, that its unity with the speculative be subject to presentation under a common principle, because in the final analysis there can be but one and the same reason which must be differentiated only in application’.
  https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/ ... chapter-18

Is it noted you did not bother to widen your philosophical range to take note and understand [not necessary agree with] alternative views. If you do not consider alternative views [especially from one of the greatest philosopher of all times] how do you know your views are sound and permanent.

What is critical is to step up and view the two opposites from a complementarity perspective just as how the Taoists reconcile Yin with Yang and Quantum physics deal with polar opposites using complementarity. This critical step will enable one to translate theory into practice and producing positive results.

When you are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is" then one is paralyzed without the ability to move into productive actions.

Please refer to the posts I made above.

That shallow and narrow minded view of "is-ought"?

My last post was to justify what is intended in the OP.

[nothing]

You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.

It is a difference between belief and knowledge:
I ought to believe because x ...
I ought not to believe x because I (now) know y ...

wherein x -> y via trying a belief-based assumption and finding/knowing it false.

[Skepdick]

You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.

Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.

In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.
Those variables we wish to maximise are ought-to.
Those variables we wish to minimise are ought-not

We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.

[nothing]

Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.

They are antithetical, thus "ought" is just as much of a sub-set of "ought not". You can not have one without the other.

It's like trying to say "omega" is a sub-set of "alpha" - no it is not, they rely on one another in order to mutually co-exist.

In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.

What in the f*ck is "the moral calculus"?
And who is "we"?

There is no discernible/agreeable objective moral standard, thus calculation of such is intrinsically relative thus invariably subject to conflict. This proves itself daily:

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
A and B annihilate.
C knows neither knew from which tree they ate.

A and B are any theoretical "moral standard" which, if when completely disagreeable, they start spilling blood. This is the problem of good and evil and how/why people who eat from the tree / "believe" to know it, manifest suffering and death to a certainty, according to the certainty to which they act on their "belief" to objectively know such a moral position as if god themselves. This is religion and patriarchal idol worship viz. Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.

A "believer" will "believe" they ought-to murder, and they ought-not-to educate (women, for example). Patriarchal men who abuse women take similar patriarchal religious idols as their "justification" for patriarchal swinery.

[Sculptor]

You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.

Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.

In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.
Those variables we wish to maximise are ought-to.
Those variables we wish to minimise are ought-not

We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.

Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!

[Skepdick]

Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!

I never said it does. The opposite is how it actually works.

Is follows from ought. By drawing a distinction between "ought" and "is" we are demanding change - we invent problems.

Definition of 'problem': things OUGHT to be different than they ARE.

Murder is a problem. Because we ought to have less murder.
If we were indifferent to murder it wouldn't be a problem.

Education is a problem. Because we ought to have more education.
If we were indifferent to education it wouldn't be a problem.

If you think "less murder" or "more education" requires justification - you are an idiot.

[Sculptor]

Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!

I never said it does. The opposite is how it actually works.

Is follows from ought. By drawing a distinction between "ought" and "is" we are demanding change - we invent problems.

Definition of 'problem': things OUGHT to be different than they ARE.

Murder is a problem.

Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.

Because we ought to have less murder.
If we were indifferent to murder it wouldn't be a problem.

Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.

Education is a problem. Because we ought to have more education.
If we were indifferent to education it wouldn't be a problem.

If you think "less murder" or "more education" requires justification - you are an idiot.

Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.
IN some cases more education is a waste of time.
Your judgement is way off.

[Skepdick]

Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.

It doesn't depend - it's a temporal claim, and therefore it's universal. Morality is only a particular case.

IS Present.
OUGHT Future.

At Present I don't have an ice-cream. In Future I want to have one.

How do I bridge the IS-OUGHT gap? With an ice-cream!

Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.

"The US state" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the US state think it's ok to murder?

Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.

"The Military" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the military think it's OK to murder citizens?

IN some cases more education is a waste of time.

Just because a rule has exceptions it doesn't make the rule invalid.

Your judgement is way off.

It's better calibrated than yours.

[Sculptor]

Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.

It doesn't depend - it's a temporal claim, and therefore it's universal. Morality is only a particular case.

Prove it!

IS Present.
OUGHT Future.

IS an opinion.
OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion

At Present I don't have an ice-cream. In Future I want to have one.

That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'

How do I bridge the IS-OUGHT gap? With an ice-cream!

Try Ben&Jerry's

Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.

"The US state" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the US state think it's ok to murder?

Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.

Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.

"The Military" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the military think it's OK to murder citizens?

Most do what they are told. That is how an military ought to work I am told.

IN some cases more education is a waste of time.

Just because a rule has exceptions it doesn't make the rule invalid.

It exactly makes all universal claims false, and that means all necessary links from an IS to an OUGHT. Which is exactly the point Hume was making.

Your judgement is way off.

It's better calibrated than yours.

Your calibration is crap.

[Skepdick]

Prove it!

You want me to prove to you that Time exists? Idiot!

IS an opinion.

I don't have an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I want an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I buy an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I have an ice-cream - that's a fact.

OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion

What opinion?

That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'

And I never said that it did.

Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.

Only idiots think like you.

Rules are prescriptive, not descriptive. Just because people commit murder doesn't make murder moral.

[Sculptor]

Prove it!

You want me to prove to you that Time exists? Idiot!

Don't be a moron, You are better than that.

IS an opinion.

I don't have an ice-cream - that's a fact.

There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.

I want an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I buy an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I have an ice-cream - that's a fact.

Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.
In fact they are all lies.

OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion

What opinion?

The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.

That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'

And I never said that it did.

Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.

Only idiots think like you.

Rules are prescriptive, not descriptive. Just because people commit murder doesn't make murder moral.

What is moral is contingent and opinionated.

[Sculptor]

In general people feel that people ought to do this or that. They then seeks our a collection of "IS" statements to try to justify imposing their so-called moral feelings on others.
Then they pretend that just because something IS that we OUGHT to act is some particular way.

[Skepdick]

Don't be a moron, You are better than that.

You can start by practicing what you preach.

There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.

Did I say anything about the "importance" of me having ice-cream? No... I didn't.
Did I say anything about all me lacking ice-cream? No.... I didn't.

You are really struggling with your counter-argument

Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.

Every one of those sentences was true. Their sequentiality is immaterial.

In fact they are all lies.

That's not true.

The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.

Why the hell would I need to justify me wanting ice-cream?

The very notion of justifying my desires seems idiotic.

What is moral is contingent and opinionated.

That is not true.

[Sculptor]

Don't be a moron, You are better than that.

You can start by practicing what you preach.

There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.

Did I say anything about the "importance" of me having ice-cream? No... I didn't.
Did I say anything about all me lacking ice-cream? No.... I didn't.

THis is YOUR problem not mine!
ROLF

You are really struggling with your counter-argument

Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.

Every one of those sentences was true. Their sequentiality is immaterial.

In fact they are all lies.

That's not true.

The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.

Why the hell would I need to justify me wanting ice-cream?

The very notion of justifying my desires seems idiotic.

What is moral is contingent and opinionated.

That is not true.

You are getting pretty confused about all this.

[Skepdick]

THis is YOUR problem not mine!
ROLF

Do you even know the difference between "you" and "me"?

You are the one struggling with the is-ought gap. Not me.

You are getting pretty confused about all this.

Yes, you are.