Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
  • - one can derived ought from is.
    - the is-ought problem is trivial upon words
    - the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy
    - Hume the originator of the is-ought problem is inconsistent
In addition to the above, one of the strongest argument against the is-ought problem and its resolution is from Alan Gerwith's;
  • The “Is-ought” Problem Resolved
    Alan Gewirth
    Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    Vol. 47 (1973 - 1974), pp. 34-61 (28 pages)
    Published By: American Philosophical Association
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3129900
  • CONTENTS:
    # Introduction -35 – The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem has not been Resolved
    # Section I -35 - The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem – 5+1 Characteristics
    # Section II -38 - Three External Arguments to Close the Gap
    # Section III -46 - 4 Steps Deriving Ought-Judgment [5 Conditions] from Empirical Facts
    • 1st Step – action, purposive, evaluative -51
      2nd Step – justifications and right-claim -52
      3rd Step – right claim universalized -54
      4th Step – universalized right-claim to correlative ‘ought’-judgment -57
    The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) -57
    Summation
    Review of the Derivation with the 5 Characteristics -60
    Objection
    # Summary of Argument -61
Gerwith's claimed his argument which is based on The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) has zero possibility for anyone to raise the usual 'begging the question' counter.

I read the paper months ago, so I don't have an immediate grasp of the argument on my finger tips at present. [will need to refresh if anyone want to challenge his argument].

For those interested check the link above to download.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

The is-ought problem is solvable in particular and on case-by-case basis, not in general.

That's why generic, all-encompassing arguments don't work. They lack context.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
  • - one can derived ought from is.
    - the is-ought problem is trivial upon words
    - the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy
    - Hume the originator of the is-ought problem is inconsistent
In addition to the above, one of the strongest argument against the is-ought problem and its resolution is from Alan Gerwith's;
  • The “Is-ought” Problem Resolved
    Alan Gewirth
    Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    Vol. 47 (1973 - 1974), pp. 34-61 (28 pages)
    Published By: American Philosophical Association
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3129900
  • CONTENTS:
    # Introduction -35 – The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem has not been Resolved
    # Section I -35 - The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem – 5+1 Characteristics
    # Section II -38 - Three External Arguments to Close the Gap
    # Section III -46 - 4 Steps Deriving Ought-Judgment [5 Conditions] from Empirical Facts
    • 1st Step – action, purposive, evaluative -51
      2nd Step – justifications and right-claim -52
      3rd Step – right claim universalized -54
      4th Step – universalized right-claim to correlative ‘ought’-judgment -57
    The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) -57
    Summation
    Review of the Derivation with the 5 Characteristics -60
    Objection
    # Summary of Argument -61
Gerwith's claimed his argument which is based on The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) has zero possibility for anyone to raise the usual 'begging the question' counter.

I read the paper months ago, so I don't have an immediate grasp of the argument on my finger tips at present. [will need to refresh if anyone want to challenge his argument].

For those interested check the link above to download.
No. I have no wish to plough through yet another futile attempt to square the circle. A factual assertion can never entail a moral conclusion, unless the argument begs the question. Factual and moral assertions have different functions. And that's why negating the moral conclusion doesn't ptoduce a logical contradiction. 'The murder rate has dropped; therefore murder is not morally wrong.' (That is not a contradiction.)

By all means, set out Gerwith's argument syllogistically - so that I or someone else can show you why it's unsound. But if we can't, then you'll have a palpable hit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:43 am No. I have no wish to plough through yet another futile attempt to square the circle.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's only "futile" because you are inept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
At which point we should ask "Why?"

Why are you starting so many different threads about the same topic? Especially given that when people respond to you, you have a tendency to refer them to other threads.

Most people on boards like this do not have jstor access, by the way. If a free version of the article isn't available and you want to talk about it on a board like this, you should at least summarize the argument.

In case folks are interested, here's a freely available paper that summarizes Gewirth's argument (the summary begins on page 59): https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi ... tations_mu

The problems with Gewirth's argument are legion, but begin at the very beginning: Gewirth says, "when we act, we do so for a purpose." That certainly is NOT universally the case. Whether this matters for Gewirth's argument is something we can talk about. Maybe someone could execute a workable version of the argument that starts with a premise such as "When Jones acts, he does so for a purpose," or "When some people act . . ."

We could pick Gewirth's argument apart step by step (and we could do so from the Stilley paper I linked to, so anyone interested can follow along), but I don't know how far we'll get with that. I'll start with what I said above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:32 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
At which point we should ask "Why?"

Why are you starting so many different threads about the same topic?
Especially given that when people respond to you, you have a tendency to refer them to other threads.
I am surprised you asked especially when this is a very contentious issue.

It is a question of efficiency in reference to specific posts to an important argument.
There are about 8 notable counter to the is-ought argument.
Can't you see the problem if I were to lump all of them into one thread of >30 pages then expected to refer to each specific argument when required to.
Most people on boards like this do not have jstor access, by the way. If a free version of the article isn't available and you want to talk about it on a board like this, you should at least summarize the argument.
Jstor give free reading of 100 articles during this pandemic period.
In any case, the proper referencing is a necessity as an intellectual protocol.
It is not easy to summarize the argument in many cases, where it is easy I will do so.
In case folks are interested, here's a freely available paper that summarizes Gewirth's argument (the summary begins on page 59): https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi ... tations_mu

The problems with Gewirth's argument are legion, but begin at the very beginning: Gewirth says, "when we act, we do so for a purpose." That certainly is NOT universally the case. Whether this matters for Gewirth's argument is something we can talk about. Maybe someone could execute a workable version of the argument that starts with a premise such as "When Jones acts, he does so for a purpose," or "When some people act . . ."

We could pick Gewirth's argument apart step by step (and we could do so from the Stilley paper I linked to, so anyone interested can follow along), but I don't know how far we'll get with that. I'll start with what I said above.
I will study Stilley's paper.
There are also many others who countered Gewirth's argument and others.

The typical counter to the is-ought counter arguments is resorting to the rules and principles of classical logic, i.e. begging the question.
Point is classical logic is useful in some perspectives but it is very limited in other aspects and nuances of reality.
This is why modern logic, fuzzy logic, deviant logic, paraconsistent logic are necessary to generate various positive elements for humanity within the all of reality.

As Kant had stated, the advantage of logic is merely grounded on its limitation, i.e. relying on abstractions and universals rather than on specific realities of things.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Peter Holmes »

So Gerwith's is 'one of the strongest arguments against the is-ought problem'.

But there are severe problems with Gerwith's argument.

And because classical logic is no good for establishing moral objectivity, we should try non-classical logics.

Stroll on.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:42 am I am surprised you asked especially when this is a very contentious issue.

It is a question of efficiency in reference to specific posts to an important argument.
Can you give an example of a something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses?

Re the rest of the post, you didn't at all bother with my comment about Gewirth's argument.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:28 am So Gerwith's is 'one of the strongest arguments against the is-ought problem'.

But there are severe problems with Gerwith's argument.

And because classical logic is no good for establishing moral objectivity, we should try non-classical logics.

Stroll on.
Q.E.D Peter treats Classical Logic as being normative/prescribed.

But there are no OUGHTS.

But you OUGHT to use the logic he tells you to use.

What a C U N T.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Peter Holmes »

Ejaculations of an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll.

'Q.E.D Peter treats Classical Logic as being normative/prescribed.'
False. And I never initially capitalise classical logic. VA does things like that.

'But there are no OUGHTS.'
False. We often use modal 'ought' and 'should' in assertions. To say an 'is' can never entail an 'ought' is not to say there are no 'oughts'. What sort of thick idiot would think that? Someone who hasn't two brain cells to rub together?

'But you OUGHT to use the logic he tells you to use.'
If I did tell anyone they ought to use classical logic, they could quite rightly tell me to fuck off. And if some twatsome troll tells me I ought not to or can't use classical logic, I can tell it to fuck off. Which I do.

'What a C U N T.'
What an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:56 pm Ejaculations of an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll.
Don't be so harsh with yourself. Maybe you'll learn something.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:56 pm False. And I never initially capitalise classical logic. VA does things like that.
False? Great!

So which logic did you use to establish "objectivity"?

What does the negation of the objective amount to in your logic?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:56 pm False. We often use modal 'ought' and 'should' in assertions. To say an 'is' can never entail an 'ought' is not to say there are no 'oughts'. What sort of thick idiot would think that? Someone who hasn't two brain cells to rub together?
So modal logic, is it?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:56 pm 'But you OUGHT to use the logic he tells you to use.'
If I did tell anyone they ought to use classical logic, they could quite rightly tell me to fuck off. And if some twatsome troll tells me I ought not to or can't use classical logic, I can tell it to fuck off. Which I do.
Great! So which logic did you use to establish "objectivity"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:56 pm What an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll.
I am intellectually-challenged. That makes you a full blown retard.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:42 am I am surprised you asked especially when this is a very contentious issue.

It is a question of efficiency in reference to specific posts to an important argument.
Can you give an example of a something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses?
I have a list of all the threads I have raised.

Btw, the is-ought was originally raised in Peter's thread [now 316 pages]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
Would you expect anyone to look for those posts related to the is-ought problem?
This is why raising separate threads is effective.

Therefrom, I have raised separate threads related to my is-ought threads.
This is like organizing the issue into chapters and sections which is typical of a good approach in presenting a book or article.

Since then I have made references to the separate threads re is-ought where it matters.
If I had raised the Gewirth's argument in the same is-ought thread and it got mixed up with other issues, it would be a dread to pick up the Gewirth's posts like finding needles in a haystack.

If anyone were to bring up Searle's argument, then I have a thread ready.
Re the rest of the post, you didn't at all bother with my comment about Gewirth's argument.
There is nothing worthwhile to comment about your comments re Gewirth's argument.
You did not present any solid counter to Gewirth's argument except chucked in a link to Stilley's thesis without giving an effective summary that you expected of me on any link I provided.
I had briefly commented to typical objections to Gewirth's argument.

I had downloaded Stilley's thesis sometime ago, I will go through it in more detail since you brought it up. I will get back to you when I have finished reading her thesis.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Peter Holmes »

William Lane Craig's half-dozen bad and repeatedly refuted - and tirelessly repeated - apologetic arguments for the existence of an invented god have nothing on VA's multitudinous OP attempts to establish moral objectivity. But spot the similarity.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:42 am Can you give an example of a something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses?
I have a list of all the threads I have raised . . .
You're horrible at addressing questions sometimes.

What I asked you, because of what you just claimed above, is to give me an example of something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses.

So I want you to actually give me an example, where (a) you're quoting another persons' response (or at least clearly referencing the post in question so that anyone can easily look at it), and (b) it's something where their response is something you consider a positive result of having created multiple threads, where you believe that the same positive result wouldn't have arisen from just a single thread.

Nothing else would count (to me) as an answer to what I'm asking for here.
it would be a dread to pick up the Gewirth's posts like finding needles in a haystack.
So if we take this to be an example, give me some examples of responses from others about this that you think are worthwhile and that you don't think could have arisen with the mention of Gewirth's argument in the context of a broader thread.

Re the rest of the post, you didn't at all bother with my comment about Gewirth's argument.
There is nothing worthwhile to comment about your comments re Gewirth's argument.
This response is not acceptable.

Here's what I said: "at the very beginning: Gewirth says, 'when we act, we do so for a purpose.' That certainly is NOT universally the case. Whether this matters for Gewirth's argument is something we can talk about. Maybe someone could execute a workable version of the argument that starts with a premise such as 'When Jones acts, he does so for a purpose,' or 'When some people act . . .'"

That's a premise in Gewirth's argument ("When we act, we do so for a purpose"), and it appears to be important to Gewirth's argument that he's claiming that it's universal.

You need to (be able to) address the points I'm bringing up.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:42 am Can you give an example of a something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses?
I have a list of all the threads I have raised . . .
You're horrible at addressing questions sometimes.

What I asked you, because of what you just claimed above, is to give me an example of something you consider to be a positive result of multiple threads about the same thing re other persons' responses.

So I want you to actually give me an example, where (a) you're quoting another persons' response (or at least clearly referencing the post in question so that anyone can easily look at it), and (b) it's something where their response is something you consider a positive result of having created multiple threads, where you believe that the same positive result wouldn't have arisen from just a single thread.

Nothing else would count (to me) as an answer to what I'm asking for here.
it would be a dread to pick up the Gewirth's posts like finding needles in a haystack.
So if we take this to be an example, give me some examples of responses from others about this that you think are worthwhile and that you don't think could have arisen with the mention of Gewirth's argument in the context of a broader thread.
I am doing my best to explain my actions which is done specifically for my own selfish interests i.e. for efficiency sake from my own perspective. I don't think what I have done is extreme in any way nor it is a serious issue.
There is nothing worthwhile to comment about your comments re Gewirth's argument.
This response is not acceptable.

Here's what I said: "at the very beginning: Gewirth says, 'when we act, we do so for a purpose.' That certainly is NOT universally the case. Whether this matters for Gewirth's argument is something we can talk about. Maybe someone could execute a workable version of the argument that starts with a premise such as 'When Jones acts, he does so for a purpose,' or 'When some people act . . .'"

That's a premise in Gewirth's argument ("When we act, we do so for a purpose"), and it appears to be important to Gewirth's argument that he's claiming that it's universal.

You need to (be able to) address the points I'm bringing up.
So far no critic of Gewirth's paper has raised that point.

The statement 'when we act, we do so for a purpose' appears to be vague because you did not read Gewirth's paper. You have to assume Gewirth is not so stupid to make empty statements like that.

In his paper, Gewirth defined what he termed as 'action'. [mine]
What is ‘Action’ and not-Action re the Argument
It is to be noted that I am here using the word 'action' in a quite strict sense.
In this [strict] sense, human movements or behaviors are not actions if they occur from one or more of the following kinds of cause:
  • (a) direct compulsion by someone or something external to the person;
    (b) causes internal to the person, such as reflexes, ignorance, or disease, which decisively contribute, in ways beyond his control, to the occurrence of the behavior;
    (c) indirect compulsion whereby the person's choice to emit some behavior is forced by someone else's coercion.
What are Actions in the Strict Sense – voluntary and purposive
In contrast to such behaviors, actions in the strict sense have the generic features of being voluntary and purposive.
By 'voluntary' I mean that the agent occurrently or dispositionally controls his behavior by his unforced choice, knowing the various proximate circumstances of his action.
By 'purposive' I mean that the agent intends to do what he does, envisaging some purpose or goal which may consist either in the performance of the action itself or in some outcome of that performance; in either case, insofar as it is the purpose of his action the agent regards it as some sort of good.
-page 48
The explanation continue for a few more paragraphs.
Point is whatever possible holes you can bring up from the statement alone "When we act, we do so for a purpose" is well covered by Gewirth.
Post Reply