is/ought, final answer

[Skepdick]

It doesn't seem all that grand to note that deriving an ought from another ought is not the same as deriving an ought from an is.

Not in the least.

But it would be very grand to tell us why you value one mode of derivation over another.

Much like your narcissistic frenemy there, I'm wondering if you have understood what purpose the act of deriving an ought from an is actually supposed to serve?

I doubt you have understood it either. Especially since you can't actually tell us the purpose of such a derivation; or why such a deprivation is "better" than any of the alternatives.

The purpose is to arrive at global objective oughts.

Is that really the purpose? That doesn't strike me as a purpose.That strikes me as a goal.

WHY do you want to arrive at global, objective oughts?

The answer to that question seems more like a purpose to me.

Nobody cares if you describe your subjective inconsequential opinions and dispositions as 'ISes', just like we don't care if you have a bucket list of oughts taped to your fridge reminding you climb Kilimanjaro one day.

That's fair. So why would anybody care about a global objective ought?

This is a debate about what grounds you have for telling me that the contents of my moral beliefs are factually mistaken when they don't correspond to yours, and your fridge has no say in the matter.

yes, I understand that the only leg you have to stand on is to work double over-time to frame the debate. But surely you've figured out by now that this lame tactic doesn't work on most people on this forum?

Moral arguments are about convincing you that you are FACTUALLY mistaken. They are about convincing you that you are mistaken in choice.
You are mistaken about your goals, about your values and acceptable behaviours. Towards this end we'll throw in facts (as if they are supposed to make a difference, but they really don't) but eventually you'll be put before the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 or not and guess which way society will pressure you?

You always have a choice, even when you can't afford the cost of making it.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=498835 time=1614159342 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498768 time=1614136741 user_id=15238]
Are you trying to say that OUGHTs aren't possible or that they come from somewhere else than ISes? Because neither possibility is possible.
[/quote]

It looks like the shorthand 'no ought can come from an is' can be mistaken to mean that oughts and is-s are real things, like cows and calves.

Reminder: 'no ought can come from an is' means that a fact can't entail or induce a non-factual conclusion, such as one asserting an 'ought'. Talk about the possibility or impossibility of oughts is deranged.
[/quote]

Real things don't necessarily have an external, measurable component. My favourite color is just as much a real fact as the existence of a cow.

Changing the terms didn't change the relationship of the concepts. Non-factual conclusions are not what morals are, they're only less delineated facts, just like quantum mechanics. The project before us isn't to imagine a different source for morality than reality but to specify how and what better so that it's more useful.

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't seem all that grand to note that deriving an ought from another ought is not the same as deriving an ought from an is.

Not in the least.

But it would be very grand to tell us why you value one mode of derivation over another.

That's covered in the thread title.

This conversation is stupid, fuck off.

[Advocate]

It is literally not possible for OUGHTs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world. That there are perspectives, understandings, and scale to account for in any Particular use of morality isn't relevant to that point.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is literally not possible for OUGHTs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world. That there are perspectives, understandings, and scale to account for in any Particular use of morality isn't relevant to that point.

In that vein there is no possibility for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world either.

So, does that mean you can derive a truth abouth what colour is correct for trousers to be, and anyone who prefers red trousers is objectively mistaken in their wardrobe choices? Because that sort of thing is exactly why people want to derive an ought from an is. It's so that you can tell other people what they are factually required to believe.

[Skepdick]

In that vein there is no possibility for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world either.

So, does that mean you can derive a truth abouth what colour is correct for trousers to be, and anyone who prefers red trousers is objectively mistaken in their wardrobe choices? Because that sort of thing is exactly why people want to derive an ought from an is. It's so that you can tell other people what they are factually required to believe.

By what magic mechanism do you think a factual-ought becomes prescriptive?

Why OUGHT anyone believe a factual-ought? Even if you could derive one.

[Skepdick]

That's covered in the thread title.

It isn't.

This conversation is stupid, fuck off.

I think you ought to be less stupid when you converse with others but that seems wee bit circular.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=498873 time=1614173631 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498868 time=1614172384 user_id=15238]
It is literally not possible for OUGHTs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world. That there are perspectives, understandings, and scale to account for in any Particular use of morality isn't relevant to that point.
[/quote]
In that vein there is no possibility for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world either.

So, does that mean you can derive a truth abouth what colour is correct for trousers to be, and anyone who prefers red trousers is objectively mistaken in their wardrobe choices? Because that sort of thing is exactly why people want to derive an ought from an is. It's so that you can tell other people what they are factually required to believe.
[/quote]

While it is certain that every version of morality must maintain survival as a prerequisite, it is less certain how the color of one's pants contribute to that, or any other moral goal.

[Skepdick]

In that vein there is no possibility for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world either.

So, does that mean you can derive a truth abouth what colour is correct for trousers to be, and anyone who prefers red trousers is objectively mistaken in their wardrobe choices?

"Kill me; or heal me doc! It's all just fashion.", said FlashDangerpants while wearing his red clown outfit.

[Terrapin Station]

Geez, are you getting lazy? What happened to taking issue with me writing "Of course," where you think you're being clever in talking about some interpretation or analytic angle you think I'm overlooking?

"Analytic angle"?

If you are doing analysis you are overlooking everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

That's what I was talking about. Now you're back on your game.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is literally not possible for OUGHTs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world. That there are perspectives, understandings, and scale to account for in any Particular use of morality isn't relevant to that point.

In that vein there is no possibility for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world either.

So, does that mean you can derive a truth abouth what colour is correct for trousers to be, and anyone who prefers red trousers is objectively mistaken in their wardrobe choices? Because that sort of thing is exactly why people want to derive an ought from an is. It's so that you can tell other people what they are factually required to believe.

While it is certain that every version of morality must maintain survival as a prerequisite, it is less certain how the color of one's pants contribute to that, or any other moral goal.

That makes no difference. It is literally not possible for FASHIONs to come from anywhere else but material facts about the material world. Therefore they must be ISes, and therefore a true and a false set of propositions to describe them, that being the actual point of using facts to determine values. It's to manufacture "factual values".

[Terrapin Station]

Scientific method applies to observable measurable phenomena. Scince doesn't need to bridge the is/ough gap because it doesn't attempt to describe oughts, so it derives ISes from ISes.

Tell that to your doctor next time they recommend treatment.
Or the guy designing the brakes for your car.

You are anthropomorphising science and this applied scientist is laughing in your idiotic face.

Attacking reductionism by reducing it is about as stupid as Philosophy gets.

The same old stupid mistake of thinking that if one is saying that value judgments, moral stances, oughts, etc. etc. aren't factual, aren't true/false, then one must be saying that people don't actually hold or act on any value judgments, moral stances, oughts, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

I think you meant to say that they learn their ethical standards by induction and/or abduction.

You can't gain them from outside of yourself. They have to be something you feel or we're not talking about ethics/morality (or any value judgments in general). The environment can influence your value judgments, but it doesn't give them to you.

[Terrapin Station]

If my role isn't useful then neither is yours.

"I know you are, but what am I." Nice.

[Skepdick]

The same old stupid mistake of thinking that if one is saying that value judgments, moral stances, oughts, etc. etc. aren't factual, aren't true/false, then one must be saying that people don't actually hold or act on any value judgments, moral stances, oughts, etc.

You don't even know what a "mistake" means.

If your conception of "factuality" and "truth" excludes what people actually do then your conception of "factuality" and "truth" is incomplete.

So just because you've decided to invent a taxonomy in which humans are not part of "the state of affairs", whose problem is that exactly?
That's a rhetorical question. It's your fucking problem that your've invented some taxonomy which inherently embraces special pleading.