That shallow and narrow minded view of "is-ought"?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:37 pmPlease refer to the posts I made above.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:11 amYou 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';
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.
- 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
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.
My last post was to justify what is intended in the OP.