Hume's "No Ought From Is" is Limited!

[promethean75]

"If there is no natural 'oughtness to breathe' within you, you should continue to hold your breath."

a bad example and very misleading, vacillating autopsy. holding one's breath until death can't be willingly done I don't think... so it can't count as a choice, as an option, as an instance of something one ought or ought not do. for a moral imperative to have any currency it has to be actionable, has to be a product of a chosen course of action. on the other hand if there really is no freewill, one could never be judged for failing to uphold a moral imperative or not.

But the guy in your example doesn't breath because he ought to, but because he has to.

[Peter Holmes]

"No Ought From Is" [NOFI]

• Hume: In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
  Section I - Treatise of Human Nature
  
  Kant: Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what-ought-to-be-done from what-is-done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter [what-is-done] is circumscribed. CPR: A318 B375

Hume's and Kant's insistence of "No Ought From Is" in relation to Morality is valid where oughts are imposed and enforced on others based on opinions, beliefs and feelings of individual[s], theists, clerics, church, groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.

Hume and Kant are making completely different points here.

Hume is talking about the sleight-of-hand seg from is-claims to ought-claims. He's not talking about compulsion at all - just the logical inconsistency I've been pointing out: non-moral assertions can't entail moral conclusions. And here his reference to factual god-talk is neutral.

By contrast, Kant concentrates on illegitimate compulsion - deriving 'the Laws prescribing what ought-to-be-done' from what-is-done - a different angle on the is-ought question.

While Kant's statement implied illegitimate compulsion, Kant asserted it is a mother of all illusion to derive enforceable Moral Laws from experience [is].

• Kant: For whereas, so far as Nature is concerned, Experience supplies the Rules and is the source of Truth,
  {but} in respect of the Moral Laws it is, alas, the mother of Illusion!
  B375

In a way Kant is also indicating there is a sleigh of hand in this case.

Hume statement as quoted do not reflect any compulsion, but if you understand Hume's background sufficiently, he was directing his argument against the theists and religious clerics of his time in enforcing 'oughts' from God with threats of hell or public condemnation or shunning.

Here is a clue, [more clearer if you get more familiar with Hume works];

Though Hume’s final view on religion is not clear, what is certain is that he was not a theist in any traditional sense.
He gives a sweeping argument that we are never justified in believing testimony that a miracle has occurred, because the evidence for uniform laws of nature will always be stronger.
If correct, this claim would undermine the veracity of any sacred text, such as the Bible, which testifies to miracles and relies on them as its guarantor of truth.
As such, Hume rejects the truth of any revealed religion, and further shows that, when corrupted with inappropriate passions, religion has harmful consequences to both morality and society.
Further, he argues, rational arguments cannot lead us to a deity.
Hume develops what are now standard objections to the analogical design argument by insisting that the analogy is drawn only from limited experience, making it impossible to conclude that a cosmic designer is infinite, morally just, or a single being.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/

non-moral assertions can't entail moral conclusions.

You think you are very smart with such a tautology?

Tautology: 'the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession).'

My assertion is not a tautology. It spells out the implication of a rule in classical deductive logic. And every single one of your arguments for moral objectivity fallaciously claims a moral assertion follows from a factual (non-moral) premise. Nul point.

[Skepdick]

My assertion is not a tautology. It spells out the implication of a rule in classical deductive logic. And every single one of your arguments for moral objectivity fallaciously claims a moral assertion follows from a factual (non-moral) premise. Nul point.

Why are you using classical deductive logic in a temporal universe?!?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"If there is no natural 'oughtness to breathe' within you, you should continue to hold your breath."

a bad example and very misleading, vacillating autopsy. holding one's breath until death can't be willingly done I don't think... so it can't count as a choice, as an option, as an instance of something one ought or ought not do. for a moral imperative to have any currency it has to be actionable, has to be a product of a chosen course of action. on the other hand if there really is no freewill, one could never be judged for failing to uphold a moral imperative or not.

But the guy in your example doesn't breath because he ought to, but because he has to.

As I had qualified, 'the oughtness to breathe' is a natural oughtness which is inherent within all humans.
Similarly I am hypothesizing there are natural oughtness [represented by physical and biological elements] that are related to morality. This could be verified and justified empirically thus an objective fact.

On the other hand, the one you are alluding to is a kind of pseudo oughtness related to morality which is subjective, based on the commands of God or subjective views of a group converted to rules, customs or Laws. Such oughts which Hume and Kant condemned cannot be objective facts.
These subjective oughts are attributed to morality, but actually they belong to merely pseudo-morality and not morality proper.

What I hypothesize are the existence of objective moral facts which can verified empirically and they are not to be enforced upon any human but rather to be used as a guide for moral standards and therefore moral improvements.

The question of 'freewill' is not relevant in this case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

non-moral assertions can't entail moral conclusions.

You think you are very smart with such a tautology?

Tautology: 'the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession).'

My assertion is not a tautology. It spells out the implication of a rule in classical deductive logic. And every single one of your arguments for moral objectivity fallaciously claims a moral assertion follows from a factual (non-moral) premise. Nul point.

If not tautology, then it is analytic, i.e. the same meanings within the same sentence and does not generate any objective conclusion at all.

It is very subjective because it represent only your personal definitions and meanings;
"non-moral assertions [PH's ] can't entail [PH's] moral conclusions."
In addition to specifically PH's view, it is also the view of a group of ignorant Analytic philosophers.

As for my argument,
I am relying on moral elements from physical and empirical elements which are verifiable and justifiable as represented by physical neurons within a specific physical pattern of connectivity in the brain which is related to moral features. These are thus objective moral facts.

On the other hands what you are relying upon is merely words, thoughts & ideas arguing against ancients ideas of pseudo-morality, generated from the brain within a specific psychological state. This is very subjective and not objective at all.

[Iwannaplato]

As for my argument,
I am relying on moral elements from physical and empirical elements which are verifiable and justifiable as represented by physical neurons within a specific physical pattern of connectivity in the brain which is related to moral features. These are thus objective moral facts.

No, you INCLUDE some physiological information that is verifiable, but make your own leap, and that leap is mere words.
PH has parsimony on his side. He can simply point out that science justifies the is, which he believes in, but does not support your leap to the ought. So, it is parsimonious to, at this point, not buy what you say.

If you include scientific facts in a post, it does not mean that your conclusions are scientific. And your conclusion is not in any way supports by those parts of your posts that can be verified.

[Skepdick]

What I hypothesize are the existence of objective moral facts which can verified empirically and they are not to be enforced upon any human but rather to be used as a guide for moral standards and therefore moral improvements.

The question of 'freewill' is not relevant in this case.

The question of free will is perfectly valid in every case.

Your brain and DNA maybe wired for you not to murder people, your moral principles may dictate a particular course of action, you may be well aware that you will be held legally accountable for your actions but some times you may freely choose to do otherwise anyway.

Free will allows for exception to any moral conclusion.

In simpler terms: Ought one adhere to all oughts? Of course not!

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I hypothesize are the existence of objective moral facts which can verified empirically and they are not to be enforced upon any human but rather to be used as a guide for moral standards and therefore moral improvements.

The question of 'freewill' is not relevant in this case.

The question of free will is perfectly valid in every case.

Your brain and DNA maybe wired for you not to murder people, your moral principles may dictate a particular course of action, you may be well aware that you will be held legally accountable for your actions but some times you may freely choose to do otherwise anyway.

Free will allows for exception to any moral conclusion.

In simpler terms: Ought one adhere to all oughts? Of course not!

A psychopath will insist he has the 'freewill' to kill anyone he freely feels like.
But the reality is, his supposed 'freewill' is conditioned by his psychological conditions and loads of other matters.
There is no freewill at all but rather only a conditioned-will or a constraint-will.

Note the example of subliminal advertising techniques where people are made to think they to choose to buy certain goods based on their freewill not knowing they were seduced by the dirty methods of subliminal advertising.
Subliminal advertising is banned, however there are many other ways companies and their advertising agency would seduce customers to favor their products and leaving them thinking their ultimate choice was based on their freewill.

If at anytime one is held accountable to some authority for one's immoral actions, that is not morality proper but rather politics or if to God, it is religion.

In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard, one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard.
Therefrom a moral competence person will strive and attempt not to repeat the same non-compliance as much as possible. There is no question of deciding to act freely.

Anyone who insist they may freely choose to do otherwise anyway [re moral actions], it is merely apparent but that is a falsehood when deliberated realistically.

[Skepdick]

What I hypothesize are the existence of objective moral facts which can verified empirically and they are not to be enforced upon any human but rather to be used as a guide for moral standards and therefore moral improvements.

The question of 'freewill' is not relevant in this case.

The question of free will is perfectly valid in every case.

Your brain and DNA maybe wired for you not to murder people, your moral principles may dictate a particular course of action, you may be well aware that you will be held legally accountable for your actions but some times you may freely choose to do otherwise anyway.

Free will allows for exception to any moral conclusion.

In simpler terms: Ought one adhere to all oughts? Of course not!

A psychopath will insist he has the 'freewill' to kill anyone he freely feels like.
But the reality is, his supposed 'freewill' is conditioned by his psychological conditions and loads of other matters.
There is no freewill at all but rather only a conditioned-will or a constraint-will.

Note the example of subliminal advertising techniques where people are made to think they to choose to buy certain goods based on their freewill not knowing they were seduced by the dirty methods of subliminal advertising.
Subliminal advertising is banned, however there are many other ways companies and their advertising agency would seduce customers to favor their products and leaving them thinking their ultimate choice was based on their freewill.

If at anytime one is held accountable to some authority for one's immoral actions, that is not morality proper but rather politics or if to God, it is religion.

In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard, one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard.
Therefrom a moral competence person will strive and attempt not to repeat the same non-compliance as much as possible. There is no question of deciding to act freely.

Anyone who insist they may freely choose to do otherwise anyway [re moral actions], it is merely apparent but that is a falsehood when deliberated realistically.

So much rhetoric so little substance. Is that why you avoided the question?

Ought one adhere to all oughts?

[Peter Holmes]

Question: why use classical deductive logic in a temporal universe?

Question: why use classical deductive logic to ask questions?

[Skepdick]

Question: why use classical deductive logic in a temporal universe?

Question: why use classical deductive logic to ask questions?

Question: Why do you think you are using classical deductive logic to ask questions?

Question: Ought we use classical deductive logic to ask questions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The question of free will is perfectly valid in every case.

Your brain and DNA maybe wired for you not to murder people, your moral principles may dictate a particular course of action, you may be well aware that you will be held legally accountable for your actions but some times you may freely choose to do otherwise anyway.

Free will allows for exception to any moral conclusion.

In simpler terms: Ought one adhere to all oughts? Of course not!

A psychopath will insist he has the 'freewill' to kill anyone he freely feels like.
But the reality is, his supposed 'freewill' is conditioned by his psychological conditions and loads of other matters.
There is no freewill at all but rather only a conditioned-will or a constraint-will.

Note the example of subliminal advertising techniques where people are made to think they to choose to buy certain goods based on their freewill not knowing they were seduced by the dirty methods of subliminal advertising.
Subliminal advertising is banned, however there are many other ways companies and their advertising agency would seduce customers to favor their products and leaving them thinking their ultimate choice was based on their freewill.

If at anytime one is held accountable to some authority for one's immoral actions, that is not morality proper but rather politics or if to God, it is religion.

In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard, one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard.
Therefrom a moral competence person will strive and attempt not to repeat the same non-compliance as much as possible. There is no question of deciding to act freely.

Anyone who insist they may freely choose to do otherwise anyway [re moral actions], it is merely apparent but that is a falsehood when deliberated realistically.

So much rhetoric so little substance. Is that why you avoided the question?

Ought one adhere to all oughts?

Actually I missed that question while focusing on freewill.

But the answer is nevertheless implied in;
"In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard [oughtness], one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard."

Thus in the case of moral oughts, one must strive to align with all moral oughts by developing one's moral competence to enable one to meet the moral standards spontaneously.
One point is at our current phase of human evolution the majority do not have that natural ability to live up to all the moral standards yet, say, it is only 20% on the whole.
As such humanity must develop and increase the majority moral competence to as high as possible [not in the present, only possible in the future] but not to 100% which is an ideal and not practical.

I am speaking of moral oughts [based on objective moral facts] but in life there are a wide range of oughts with different degrees of urgency and criticalness to be aligned with in different timings.
E.g. the biological ought of 'one must breathe' cannot be compromised for more than one minute for the majority, but other oughts have different criticalness & urgency in different timings.

So to answer the question, one and all humans need not align [achieve] with all oughts instantly but they need to be mindful of the eternal moral oughts.
Note I avoid the term 'adhere' or 'comply' to all oughts because such terms do not align with objective moral oughts but rather to subjectively laden political [legal] and religious oughts.

[Skepdick]

A psychopath will insist he has the 'freewill' to kill anyone he freely feels like.
But the reality is, his supposed 'freewill' is conditioned by his psychological conditions and loads of other matters.
There is no freewill at all but rather only a conditioned-will or a constraint-will.

Note the example of subliminal advertising techniques where people are made to think they to choose to buy certain goods based on their freewill not knowing they were seduced by the dirty methods of subliminal advertising.
Subliminal advertising is banned, however there are many other ways companies and their advertising agency would seduce customers to favor their products and leaving them thinking their ultimate choice was based on their freewill.

If at anytime one is held accountable to some authority for one's immoral actions, that is not morality proper but rather politics or if to God, it is religion.

In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard, one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard.
Therefrom a moral competence person will strive and attempt not to repeat the same non-compliance as much as possible. There is no question of deciding to act freely.

Anyone who insist they may freely choose to do otherwise anyway [re moral actions], it is merely apparent but that is a falsehood when deliberated realistically.

So much rhetoric so little substance. Is that why you avoided the question?

Ought one adhere to all oughts?

Actually I missed that question while focusing on freewill.

But the answer is nevertheless implied in;
"In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard [oughtness], one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard."

Thus in the case of moral oughts, one must strive to align with all moral oughts by developing one's moral competence to enable one to meet the moral standards spontaneously.
One point is at our current phase of human evolution the majority do not have that natural ability to live up to all the moral standards yet, say, it is only 20% on the whole.
As such humanity must develop and increase the majority moral competence to as high as possible [not in the present, only possible in the future] but not to 100% which is an ideal and not practical.

I am speaking of moral oughts [based on objective moral facts] but in life there are a wide range of oughts with different degrees of urgency and criticalness to be aligned with in different timings.
E.g. the biological ought of 'one must breathe' cannot be compromised for more than one minute for the majority, but other oughts have different criticalness & urgency in different timings.

So to answer the question, one and all humans need not align [achieve] with all oughts instantly but they need to be mindful of the eternal moral oughts.
Note I avoid the term 'adhere' or 'comply' to all oughts because such terms do not align with objective moral oughts but rather to subjectively laden political [legal] and religious oughts.

There's too many rules there - I can't navigate that mess.

Simplify it for me.

Are you saying that some ought ought to be adhered to more strictly than other oughts? Sure seems that there is a continuum of oughts.

e.g I ought not fart in the elevator vs I ought not shove icepicks into people's eyeballs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So much rhetoric so little substance. Is that why you avoided the question?

Ought one adhere to all oughts?

Actually I missed that question while focusing on freewill.

But the answer is nevertheless implied in;
"In the morality proper scenario, one recognized the moral reality and is guided by the ideal moral standard and if one cannot meet that standard [oughtness], one understand that is due to one's specific restricted conditions not because one choose freely not to comply with the standard."

Thus in the case of moral oughts, one must strive to align with all moral oughts by developing one's moral competence to enable one to meet the moral standards spontaneously.
One point is at our current phase of human evolution the majority do not have that natural ability to live up to all the moral standards yet, say, it is only 20% on the whole.
As such humanity must develop and increase the majority moral competence to as high as possible [not in the present, only possible in the future] but not to 100% which is an ideal and not practical.

I am speaking of moral oughts [based on objective moral facts] but in life there are a wide range of oughts with different degrees of urgency and criticalness to be aligned with in different timings.
E.g. the biological ought of 'one must breathe' cannot be compromised for more than one minute for the majority, but other oughts have different criticalness & urgency in different timings.

So to answer the question, one and all humans need not align [achieve] with all oughts instantly but they need to be mindful of the eternal moral oughts.
Note I avoid the term 'adhere' or 'comply' to all oughts because such terms do not align with objective moral oughts but rather to subjectively laden political [legal] and religious oughts.

There's too many rules there - I can't navigate that mess.

Simplify it for me.

Are you saying that some ought ought to be adhered to more strictly than other oughts? Sure seems that there is a continuum of oughts.

e.g I ought not fart in the elevator vs I ought not shove icepicks into people's eyeballs.

Yes there is a continuum of oughts in terms of different criticalness & urgency in different timings and different conditions.

There are a wide range of oughts, e.g. ought not to fart in the elevator is a matter of courtesy and not being offensive is not a moral ought like shoving icepicks into peoples' eyeballs in a violent manner or killing people by whatever means.

Ultimately whatever is to be identified as moral oughts proper, they must be verifiable and justifiable empirically thus as objective moral facts. In addition these objective moral facts are not to be enforced on anyone.

[Skepdick]

Yes there is a continuum of oughts in terms of different criticalness & urgency in different timings and different conditions.

There are a wide range of oughts, e.g. ought not to fart in the elevator is a matter of courtesy and not being offensive is not a moral ought like shoving icepicks into peoples' eyeballs in a violent manner or killing people by whatever means.

Ultimately whatever is to be identified as moral oughts proper, they must be verifiable and justifiable empirically thus as objective moral facts. In addition these objective moral facts are not to be enforced on anyone.

So you are solving nothing whatsoever.

Not only are you sub-categorising oughts into moral and non-moral.
You are also sub-categorising moral oughts into critical and urgent.
You are also saying oughts are subject to context and conditions.

So what happens when you have competing oughts from different sub-categories in different contexts and different conditions at the exact same time?

Do you let lapse your duty to an urgent ought; or a critical ought?
Do you let lapse your moral duty to your family; or your moral duty to your species?
Do you let lapse your moral duty to your wife; or to your parents?

Choices, choices, choices, choices... How do you optimise your limited time?