the is/ought problem solved

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

Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

The statement that OUGHTs cannot be derived from ISes is incorrect. There is literally no other place from which to get them whether the IS is empirical or otherwise. IF you want to live in a certain kind of society THEN you should behave in certain ways. All OUGHTs come from ISes, It IS the case that certain behaviours tend to lead to certain results. IS is a prerequisite for OUGHT.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by FlashDangerpants »

This again...

Wanting to live in a certain sort of society is an evaluation. You derived an ought from an ought. You have solved nothing. Also that's not a moral ought, it is a goal derived ought.

A moral argument that can be switched to an argument that if you want eat some soup you ought to use a spoon not a fork is not likely to be the undoing of Hume.
Impenitent
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Impenitent »

bashing David's skull with a lead ladle might undo him...

soup ought to have noodles...

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4932
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:53 pm The statement that OUGHTs cannot be derived from ISes is incorrect.
If we are discussing within classical plain logic and common ordinary language, an 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' deductively, e.g.

logically it should be
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. C2 Is - Descriptive
thus the following is wrong.
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
The above conclusion is false because there are no ought in the premises. The 'ought' cannot appear in the conclusion out of the blue.

But Moral language is very specific to morality and is not plain ordinary language.
Searle had demonstrated an 'ought' can be derived from 'is' when additional premises involving 'speech acts' and constitutional facts are used, thus;
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. P3 Is- Ought [constitutional]
    3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
See this thread;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

According to many philosophers the IS-OUGHT distinction is a trivial [childish] issue which is limited when we agree and confine ourselves to classical logic of deduction.

But note, the most credible truths, facts and knowledge is from Science which do not give a damn f... for the rules of deduction but rather rely on induction and observations and obviously relying on the highest grade of objectivity and justifications of its results which has the highest utility potentials to humanity.

Also it is so common and obvious that our laws are deriving 'ought_s' from 'is_es' in reality and imposed that upon the respective citizens regardless of deductive logic.

Currently moral philosophers has moved away from the archaic and relatively childish is-ought, fact-value dichotomy to a more empirical based science-liked deliberation on morality that involve a multi-disciplinary approach.
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:43 pm This again...

Wanting to live in a certain sort of society is an evaluation. You derived an ought from an ought. You have solved nothing. Also that's not a moral ought, it is a goal derived ought.

A moral argument that can be switched to an argument that if you want eat some soup you ought to use a spoon not a fork is not likely to be the undoing of Hume.
OUGHTs exist. There is nowhere else for OUGHTs to be derived from but ISes. The end.

Sam Harris does a decent example explaining how that works, for those of you haven't walked the walk yet.
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:29 am
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:53 pm The statement that OUGHTs cannot be derived from ISes is incorrect.
If we are discussing within classical plain logic and common ordinary language, an 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' deductively, e.g.

logically it should be
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. C2 Is - Descriptive
thus the following is wrong.
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
The above conclusion is false because there are no ought in the premises. The 'ought' cannot appear in the conclusion out of the blue.

But Moral language is very specific to morality and is not plain ordinary language.
Searle had demonstrated an 'ought' can be derived from 'is' when additional premises involving 'speech acts' and constitutional facts are used, thus;
  • 1. PI Is - Descriptive
    2. P2 Is - Descriptive
    3. P3 Is- Ought [constitutional]
    3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
See this thread;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

According to many philosophers the IS-OUGHT distinction is a trivial [childish] issue which is limited when we agree and confine ourselves to classical logic of deduction.

But note, the most credible truths, facts and knowledge is from Science which do not give a damn f... for the rules of deduction but rather rely on induction and observations and obviously relying on the highest grade of objectivity and justifications of its results which has the highest utility potentials to humanity.

Also it is so common and obvious that our laws are deriving 'ought_s' from 'is_es' in reality and imposed that upon the respective citizens regardless of deductive logic.

Currently moral philosophers has moved away from the archaic and relatively childish is-ought, fact-value dichotomy to a more empirical based science-liked deliberation on morality that involve a multi-disciplinary approach.
OUGHTs are always contingent on what the desired outcome is. IF/THEN. It cannot be otherwise because prescriptive OUGHTs from elsewhere cannot exist. Because ISes can ONLY come from OUGHTs, any argument to the contrary is necessarily invalid.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:43 pm This again...

Wanting to live in a certain sort of society is an evaluation. You derived an ought from an ought. You have solved nothing. Also that's not a moral ought, it is a goal derived ought.

A moral argument that can be switched to an argument that if you want eat some soup you ought to use a spoon not a fork is not likely to be the undoing of Hume.
OUGHTs exist. There is nowhere else for OUGHTs to be derived from but ISes. The end.

Sam Harris does a decent example explaining how that works, for those of you haven't walked the walk yet.
Goals are not derived from ISes, they are not derived at all, they are chosen, OUGHTs do not "exist", that's just stupid.

You will achieve nothing following the lead of Sam Harris, he is absolutely shit at this stuff.
KLewchuk
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by KLewchuk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:46 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:43 pm This again...

Wanting to live in a certain sort of society is an evaluation. You derived an ought from an ought. You have solved nothing. Also that's not a moral ought, it is a goal derived ought.

A moral argument that can be switched to an argument that if you want eat some soup you ought to use a spoon not a fork is not likely to be the undoing of Hume.
OUGHTs exist. There is nowhere else for OUGHTs to be derived from but ISes. The end.

Sam Harris does a decent example explaining how that works, for those of you haven't walked the walk yet.
Goals are not derived from ISes, they are not derived at all, they are chosen, OUGHTs do not "exist", that's just stupid.

You will achieve nothing following the lead of Sam Harris, he is absolutely shit at this stuff.
Mr pants, I think I agree. If I am sick and there is a pill that makes me well, I "ought" to take a pill. However, my state of sickness is an is and my state of wellness is an is. Therefore, "ought" is a connection between two states of "is", one being objectively preferable to the other. We derived our oughts from is.

Mr Veritas, "Sam Harris is absolutely shit at this stuff". Great argument, I am sold. :-)
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:46 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:43 pm This again...

Wanting to live in a certain sort of society is an evaluation. You derived an ought from an ought. You have solved nothing. Also that's not a moral ought, it is a goal derived ought.

A moral argument that can be switched to an argument that if you want eat some soup you ought to use a spoon not a fork is not likely to be the undoing of Hume.
OUGHTs exist. There is nowhere else for OUGHTs to be derived from but ISes. The end.

Sam Harris does a decent example explaining how that works, for those of you haven't walked the walk yet.
Goals are not derived from ISes, they are not derived at all, they are chosen, OUGHTs do not "exist", that's just stupid.

You will achieve nothing following the lead of Sam Harris, he is absolutely shit at this stuff.
By deriving (base a concept on a logical extension or modification of (another concept)) i merely meant came from, but it's technically correct either way. All things on the "spiritual" side of this line (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is contingent (salience, perspective, and priority) and based on things on the material side of the line.

All concepts exist. Even god exists as a concept, and oughts, like all other spiritual concepts, also does real, material, world work. It's as real as real gets. It's simply not physically so until we can correlate the patterns in the brain.

You're doing quite well with your skepticism, but there's no purpose to it if it doesn't help lead to actionable certainty. Skepticism/deconstruction is only a first step, but it's far from helpful here because my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.

I'm not following Sam, i've independently derived almost everything i've ever thought, but his is the example most people will be able to connect with. He's better than almost anyone else i've heard of, incidentally. He's more logical than Pinker, for example.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:22 pm You're doing quite well with your skepticism, but there's no purpose to it if it doesn't help lead to actionable certainty. Skepticism/deconstruction is only a first step, but it's far from helpful here because my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.
Pretentious bullshit.
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:43 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:22 pm You're doing quite well with your skepticism, but there's no purpose to it if it doesn't help lead to actionable certainty. Skepticism/deconstruction is only a first step, but it's far from helpful here because my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.
Pretentious bullshit.
Great argument. I'm sold.

Would you care to point out what about it is pretentious and why it's not factually accurate?
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:43 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:22 pm You're doing quite well with your skepticism, but there's no purpose to it if it doesn't help lead to actionable certainty. Skepticism/deconstruction is only a first step, but it's far from helpful here because my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.
Pretentious bullshit.
Great argument. I'm sold.

Would you care to point out what about it is pretentious and why it's not factually accurate?
It doesn't seem worth the effort mate. If you can't see what is pretentious about "the glue of logical necessity", let alone "i've independently derived almost everything i've ever thought" there's not much to be done for you. Your true home is here https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Beyond that, what's really the point of doing any more of this? You didn't derive an ought from an is, you did the same thing that every other pissant who tries this argument does, you got an ought plus an optional is and tried to derive another ought from that pairing. Even Verbose Octothorp seems to have noticed that doesn't work now, and he is as thick as shit.
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:08 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:43 pm
Pretentious bullshit.
Great argument. I'm sold.

Would you care to point out what about it is pretentious and why it's not factually accurate?
It doesn't seem worth the effort mate. If you can't see what is pretentious about "the glue of logical necessity", let alone "i've independently derived almost everything i've ever thought" there's not much to be done for you. Your true home is here https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Beyond that, what's really the point of doing any more of this? You didn't derive an ought from an is, you did the same thing that every other pissant who tries this argument does, you got an ought plus an optional is and tried to derive another ought from that pairing. Even Verbose Octothorp seems to have noticed that doesn't work now, and he is as thick as shit.
It's not pretentious if it's accurate (attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.), nor if i'm not attempting to impress, which i'm not, but you don't seem to care about that stuff. Most non-academic philosophers have independently derived most of what they've thought, i'd say. Nothing pretentious there, and again you're pretending stating factual truth can be pretentious. It just ain't so. And i legitimately don't care what you think so that part just ain't so either.

Personal attacks are the lowest form of argument, in case you weren't aware, which seems compatible with everything else i know about you.

I never claimed i derived an ought from an is. I claimed All OUGHTs can Only be derived from an IS. That's not the same thing as giving an example. All examples will work, as is obvious from the actual contention.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:09 pm It's not pretentious if it's accurate
You totally licked the whipped cream of knowledge from wisdom's quivering earhole there.
Advocate
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Post by Advocate »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:51 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:09 pm It's not pretentious if it's accurate
You totally licked the whipped cream of knowledge from wisdom's quivering earhole there.
I don't recognise what you're doing right now but it's not philosophy.
Post Reply