Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality [proper].

Posters like Flasher, Peter Holmes, Sculptor, IC and their likes are making a mountain out of a molehill and too much noise with this 'Is-Ought' dichotomy.

In this article;

• The Triviality of the Debate over "Is-Ought" and the Definition of "Moral"
  Peter Singer
  https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009474?s ... b_contents

Peter Singer argued, the 'Is-Ought' dichotomy is trivial and "toothless" to moral issues;

I shall argue that the differences between the contending parties are terminological, and that there are various possible terminologies, none of which has, on balance, any great advantage over any other terminology.

It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues.

The dispute between the neutralist and the descriptivist, therefore, is a dispute about where, within a limited framework, morality shall be placed. – i.e. fact or action.

So instead of continuing to regard these issues as central, moral philosophers could, I believe, "agree to disagree" about the "is-ought" problem,
and about the definition of morality, provided only that everyone was careful to stipulate how he was using the term "moral" and was aware of the implications and limitations of the definition he was using.
Moral philosophers could then move on to consider more important issues.

It is not practical to provide all the details for his justifications.
The above conclusions are justified in the article.

The Content [not given] I abstracted are as follows;

• CONTENT
  Introduction
  Two Extreme Views on Morality
  1. Neutralism
  ........Neutralist’s Moral Principles are Overriding
  ........Moral Principle Held = Way he Acts - Actions
  2. Descriptivism [naturalism]
  ........Links Moral Principles to Action
  Reconciliation of the Two Views
  ........Neutralism Do Not Differ with Descriptivism on how Facts are connected with Reason
  A Middle Position [3]
  Above are Three Positions Considered
  Conclusion

Do you agree with Peter Singer, a very reputable Moral Philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Views??

[Impenitent]

singer argues that the amount of pain suffered by the hunger of thousands of carnivorous insects is greater than your child's pain when being eaten alive by the same carnivorous insects... it is more moral for you to feed the insects

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

singer argues that the amount of pain suffered by the hunger of thousands of carnivorous insects is greater than your child's pain when being eaten alive by the same carnivorous insects... it is more moral for you to feed the insects

-Imp

If that is the case, I would disagree.
Where did he say that?

I don't have to agree with every view from Singer.
I will agree to any proposition that is soundly and rationally justified like the one in the OP by Singer or by another.

[Advocate]

Why the fuck would you link an article that most people cannot access?

[Atla]

Posters like Flasher, Peter Holmes, Sculptor, IC and their likes are making a mountain out of a molehill and too much noise with this 'Is-Ought' dichotomy.

Dunno, looking at the last 50 threads in the Ethical theory subforum, 21 were started by you and 2 by those other dudes. If it wasn't for Advocate, it would be closer to 40 out of 50. Almost all of them some variation on "VA can't grasp the is/ought dichotomy".

[FlashDangerpants]

"agree to disagree" about the "is-ought" problem

Views??

Disagree

[Terrapin Station]

I shall argue that the differences between the contending parties are terminological,

Nope. Peter Singer is wrong here. He's touting the old Wittgensteinian nonsense about terminological versus substantive disagreements.

It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues.

Wrong.

The dispute between the neutralist and the descriptivist, therefore, is a dispute about where, within a limited framework, morality shall be placed. – i.e. fact or action.

No, wrong again. He's not even capturing the basic issue of the is/ought problem.

philosophers could, I believe, "agree to disagree" about the "is-ought" problem,

They could, but I'm not about to "agree to disagree." My position instead is "Get your shit straight and don't pretend that is's can imply oughts."

Introduction
Two Extreme Views on Morality
1. Neutralism
........Neutralist’s Moral Principles are Overriding
........Moral Principle Held = Way he Acts - Actions
2. Descriptivism [naturalism]
........Links Moral Principles to Action
Reconciliation of the Two Views
........Neutralism Do Not Differ with Descriptivism on how Facts are connected with Reason
A Middle Position [3]
Above are Three Positions Considered
Conclusion[/list]

The categorical distinctions he's making there aren't even representative of the actual range and content of positions held.

Singer isn't always worthless, but this appears to be a crap article.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality [proper].

I shall argue that the differences between the contending parties are terminological, and that there are various possible terminologies, none of which has, on balance, any great advantage over any other terminology.

Singer's just wrong. That's all that can be said about him.

He's personable and friendly seeming. But inside that, he's a crass utilitarian with a stunted understanding of philosophical ethics and very little mental dexterity in sorting out the theory behind what he claims. For example, he thinks killing children and the elderly is just fine, under the "right" conditions. When says that the is-ought is merely a matter of language, then nobody can have a duty to anything. In other words, he treats morality by simply saying, pretend it doesn't exist, and carry on pragmatically.

He doesn't even understand, so far as we can see, the problem that so many other modern moral philosophers recognize as fundamental. Like many, he simply thinks his "common" sense is everybody's.

[Advocate]

My answer, that OUGHTs Must come from ISes, allows us to move forward. Yours, that OUGHTs don't exist, or that they come from anywhere other than the change we desire to create in the world, do not. Therefore mine is superior. Can we the-fuck-Please move on now?

[Immanuel Can]

My answer, that OUGHTs Must come from ISes, allows us to move forward.

But that's simply to accept a falsehood. There is no connection between "is" statements and "ought" ones. And saying , "Well, we can go forward if there were" is no answer at all.

We could all fly to the moon if we had rockets. But we don't. And saying, "Well, that holds us back from what we want to do" is irrelevant.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=495543 time=1612981315 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495537 time=1612978504 user_id=15238]
My answer, that OUGHTs Must come from ISes, allows us to move forward.
[/quote]
But that's simply to accept a falsehood. There is no connection between "is" statements and "ought" ones. And saying , "Well, we can go forward if there were" is no answer at all.

We could all fly to the moon if we had rockets. But we don't. And saying, "Well, that holds us back from what we want to do" is irrelevant.
[/quote]

But we Do have rockets and you're merely saying otherwise. Ethics is a functional part of society. It comes from somewhere. I offer an explanatory answer that is both necessary and sufficient in every sense. To even question further is foolishness. Take the perfectly pragmatic and hole-less explanation i've given you and apply it until you discover IN PRACTICE that it cannot fail to avail us of actionable certainty toward higher understandings. I'm not offering just an explanation, i'm offering The Truth. If you ignore it's Actual Practical Reality, that's between you and your solipsist anus.

[Immanuel Can]

Ethics is a functional part of society. It comes from somewhere.

Obviously, yes. But that begs the important question: how is it justified? That's the "ought" of it all.

Many things can be a "functional part of society" which are not moral. There are societies where beating and burning women is part of their ethical framework, or where forcing pre-pubescent girls into "marriages" with old men is considered noble, and where female genital mutilation, child slavery and abortion are practiced. But if you think they're wrong, you have to be able to say why these people ought not to do them, even though they are a "functional part of society."

I'm not offering just an explanation, i'm offering The Truth.

Oh, my....capitalized, too.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=495565 time=1612988157 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495546 time=1612982632 user_id=15238]
Ethics is a functional part of society. It comes from somewhere.[/quote]
Obviously, yes. But that begs the important question: how is it justified? That's the "ought" of it all.

Many things can be a "functional part of society" which are not moral. There are societies where beating and burning women is part of their ethical framework, or where forcing pre-pubescent girls into "marriages" with old men is considered noble, and where female genital mutilation, child slavery and abortion are practiced. But if you think they're wrong, you have to be able to say why these people ought not to do them, even though they are a "functional part of society."

[quote] I'm not offering just an explanation, i'm offering The Truth. [/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, my....capitalized, too. :D
[/quote]

Yes, there is only one The Truth, however infinite the perspectives of it.

I think you know that ethical frameworks are not all created equal. That does not mean they're not all for the same purpose in the eyes of those who claim them - to make things better. There are empirically better and worse ways to reach Any goals and there are empirically better and worse goals for the good of either individuals or any group of individuals. The "subjectivity" of ethics is in whether it accomplishes it's intents and whether it's intents are good. To the extent we can find universals, we can solve ethics. To the extent we can agree or reach consensual compromises, we can solve ethics. To the extent we can formalize the relationships between rights we can solve ethics. There's nothing subjective about what ethics is or how it works, only what the results are, or should be. It's precisely like the difference between soundness and validity. Ethics is the framework within which various goals can be accomplished. A good life is when ethics is done properly. Ethical maturity is accounting for externalities, which your examples explicitly do Not do.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you know that ethical frameworks are not all created equal.

I'm curious as to why you think that. I know why I do.

That does not mean they're not all for the same purpose in the eyes of those who claim them - to make things better. There are empirically better and worse ways to reach Any goals and there are empirically better and worse goals for the good of either individuals or any group of individuals. The "subjectivity" of ethics is in whether it accomplishes it's intents and whether it's intents are good.

That's just all goofy. Every society thinks its own ethics makes "things" better. But what "things" they are, and what it means to "make them better" differs profoundly.

Child slavery makes labour cheaper. Very efficient. Societies that perform female genital mutilation do it for purity, and many women are socialized into believing it's actually good for them to be sliced up. All societies think their way is "better." That gives us no guidance among them at all.

To the extent we can find universals, we can solve ethics.

Well, what's the "universal" you think we can use to orient our ethics? It's clearly not "efficiency" or "making things better," because the Third Reich said that making things better would be herding "undesirables" into death camps. How do you prove them wrong?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=495570 time=1612989422 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495546 time=1612982632 user_id=15238]
I think you know that ethical frameworks are not all created equal. [/quote]
I'm curious as to why you think that. I know why I do.

[quote]That does not mean they're not all for the same purpose in the eyes of those who claim them - to make things better. There are empirically better and worse ways to reach Any goals and there are empirically better and worse goals for the good of either individuals or any group of individuals. The "subjectivity" of ethics is in whether it accomplishes it's intents and whether it's intents are good. [/quote]
That's just all goofy. Every society thinks its own ethics makes "things" better. But what "things" they are, and what it means to "make them better" differs profoundly.

Child slavery makes labour cheaper. Very efficient. Societies that perform female genital mutilation do it for purity, and many women are socialized into believing it's actually good for them to be sliced up. All societies think their way is "better." That gives us no guidance among them at all.

[quote]To the extent we can find universals, we can solve ethics.[/quote]
Well, what's the "universal" you think we can use to orient our ethics? It's clearly not "efficiency" or "making things better," because the Third Reich said that making things better would be herding "undesirables" into death camps. How do you prove them wrong?
[/quote]

First, ethics (a system of understanding morality); must be for the good of everyone involved, not an arbitrary subset. Second, it must have explicit shared understandings or it's likewise arbitrary. Third, it must prove by prediction and replication that it produces the intended effects. And so forth. These are non-arbitrary criteria. I'm not here to solve ethics in toto but to provide the framework for understanding which is Necessary in order to do so.