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

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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's NOFI is argued against Rationalists of his time but I believe his focus was directed on theists, the Church and clerics who simply imposed 'oughts' from God on everyone merely based on faith.

While NOFI makes sense at one level, it has contributed to the hindrance of development and progress of moral competence within humanity for the last 250 years. Within that period to the present, anyone who proposed any thesis resembling NOFI would be ridiculed as stupid!

But Hume's NOFI is limited by his ignorance of facts [not available during his time] which he readily admitted in his writings;

• Hume: A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
  Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
  1. those of SENSATION and
  2. those of REFLEXION.
  The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
  SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
  
  Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
  SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.
  
  The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
  SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

On the other hand, Kant also did not have the necessary biological knowledge but he did infer from reasonings that there are objective moral facts and mentioned elements of human nature.

I believe at present it is the time we should put Hume's NOFI aside and expedite research to establish real objective moral facts within the human brain and human nature.

I believe the majority will be bewildered by my above propositions but I will merely make the above claims nevertheless.

[Sculptor]

I believe at present it is the time we should put Hume's NOFI aside and expedite research to establish real objective moral facts within the human brain and human nature.

I believe the majority will be bewildered by my above propositions but I will merely make the above claims nevertheless.

You are definitely bewildered.
Given what you say there must be several oughts which could be necessarily derived from an is.
Please give us all an ought which is necessarily derived from an is. The we can go on from there.

One example should suffice.

I shall not be holding my breath

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe at present it is the time we should put Hume's NOFI aside and expedite research to establish real objective moral facts within the human brain and human nature.

I believe the majority will be bewildered by my above propositions but I will merely make the above claims nevertheless.

You are definitely bewildered.
Given what you say there must be several oughts which could be necessarily derived from an is.
Please give us all an ought which is necessarily derived from an is. The we can go on from there.

One example should suffice.

I shall not be holding my breath

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

Note Constitutional ought [Rawls], e.g. the implied oughtness to fulfil one's obligation in the case of a promise.

As far as Hume is concern, his NOFI does not refer to a blanket statement that it is absolute, no "ought" can be derived from "is". Note his statement where he qualified to morality as he knew it or met with;
Hume: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with ........"

In addition, Hume cannot play God [to insist he is right] since his knowledge then was limited - very limited...

Hume's concern is only with reference to oughts [related to what is supposed to be morality] that are imposed on individuals as arising from [the much hated] God's command or the SUBJECTIVE wishes of others.

It is the ignoramus like you who blindly banked on Hume's words and take it as applicable blanketly to every aspect of reality. Wake up!

[Sculptor]

I believe at present it is the time we should put Hume's NOFI aside and expedite research to establish real objective moral facts within the human brain and human nature.

I believe the majority will be bewildered by my above propositions but I will merely make the above claims nevertheless.

You are definitely bewildered.
Given what you say there must be several oughts which could be necessarily derived from an is.
Please give us all an ought which is necessarily derived from an is. The we can go on from there.

One example should suffice.

I shall not be holding my breath

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

I suppose you think you are being clever, but you are not.
Breathing is an autonomic system over which we have no ultimate control.
Try again

Note Constitutional ought [Rawls], e.g. the implied oughtness to fulfil one's obligation in the case of a promise.

Not relevant or applicable to breathing.

As far as Hume is concern, his NOFI does not refer to a blanket statement that it is absolute, no "ought" can be derived from "is". Note his statement where he qualified to morality as he knew it or met with;
Hume: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with ........"

If you want to channel Hume please cite publication and page reference.

In addition, Hume cannot play God [to insist he is right] since his knowledge then was limited - very limited...

God help you. Hume is saying that humans cannot play god, you dipshit.

Hume's concern is only with reference to oughts [related to what is supposed to be morality] that are imposed on individuals as arising from [the much hated] God's command or the SUBJECTIVE wishes of others.

It is the ignoramus like you who blindly banked on Hume's words and take it as applicable blanketly to every aspect of reality. Wake up!

Please furnish us with one example.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are definitely bewildered.
Given what you say there must be several oughts which could be necessarily derived from an is.
Please give us all an ought which is necessarily derived from an is. The we can go on from there.

One example should suffice.

I shall not be holding my breath

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

I suppose you think you are being clever, but you are not.
Breathing is an autonomic system over which we have no ultimate control.
Try again

This is where your thinking is so narrow and shallow.
All humans [with exceptions] have the ability and control to stop their breathing anytime and FOREVER.
Note those people who commit suicide voluntarily by various methods of asphyxiation can counter their autonomic system as such.

Being an autonomic system is not the critical issue in this case.

The fact is there is a physical-state-of-oughtness to breathe inherent for all humans.
The point is, in general the existing inherent autonomic system is also a matter of fact.

As such, there are two types of ought for consideration,
1. There is this natural oughtness as a physical state inherent in all humans. This is a matter of fact and thus an objective biological ought. In this case, there is an ought from is [existence and reality]

2. There are the oughts imposed by society on citizens via laws, rules, [this politics not morality] customs, etc. that made it illegal to commit suicide by asphyxiation or other methods. In this case, one cannot extract an ought from is because it is based on subjective matters.

From 2 there are natural biological oughts and where these oughts are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.

Note Constitutional ought [Rawls], e.g. the implied oughtness to fulfil one's obligation in the case of a promise.

Not relevant or applicable to breathing.

??
This is a case where Searles [not Rawls] argued against Hume's claims, that there can be oughts from is in the case of a promise.

As far as Hume is concern, his NOFI does not refer to a blanket statement that it is absolute, no "ought" can be derived from "is". Note his statement where he qualified to morality as he knew it or met with;
Hume: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with ........"

If you want to channel Hume please cite publication and page reference.

What??
I have already provided the reference to Hume's Treatise of Human Nature in the OP which is the standard academic requirement. Your asking for publication and page reference reflects your ignorance.

In addition, Hume cannot play God [to insist he is right] since his knowledge then was limited - very limited...

God help you. Hume is saying that humans cannot play god, you dipshit.

Ignoramus.

Hume's concern is only with reference to oughts [related to what is supposed to be morality] that are imposed on individuals as arising from [the much hated] God's command or the SUBJECTIVE wishes of others.

It is the ignoramus like you who blindly banked on Hume's words and take it as applicable blanketly to every aspect of reality. Wake up!

Please furnish us with one example.

The above is my belief based on what I read of Hume, note the quote in the OP.
If you have read Hume thoroughly you would have noted Hume critique religion and theism severely.

[Iwannaplato]

1. There is this natural oughtness as a physical state inherent in all humans. This is a matter of fact and thus an objective biological ought. In this case, there is an ought from is [existence and reality]

This is not an ought, it's an is.

[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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

I pointed this out earlier....to no avail. Not that I have much hope it would make things different if he didn't, but his habit of starting new threads covering the same ground no doubt splits his attention and makes it even less likely he will notice certain things.

[Skepdick]

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.

Why do you keep lying about that?

There is no inconsistency when we use linear/temporal logic. Any is entails every ought because every future is a possible future.

Given the fact that you are lying about entailment, one possible future is a future where we ought to call you a lying twat.

You lying twat.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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?

[Sculptor]

Breathing is an autonomic system over which we have no ultimate control.
Try again

This is where your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

PLONK!!!


Please furnish us with one example.

[Peter Holmes]

Moronic claim: When we use linear/temporal logic, any is entails every ought, because every future is a possible future.

This is moronic for two reasons.

1 Moral assertions aren't temporal in scope. They have nothing to say about possible futures. An ought is an ought is an ought is an ought.

2 If any is entails every ought, then 'water is H2O' entails 'therefore, abortion is morally wrong' and 'therefore, abortion is not morally wrong'.

But - reminder to self: don't feed the unpleasant, intellectually-challenged and self-confessed dick troll.

[Sculptor]

1) Moral rule. (example)

The German Race is superior to others.
Therefore we ought to exterminate or dominate all non Germans.

[Iwannaplato]

But - reminder to self: don't feed the unpleasant, intellectually-challenged and self-confessed dick troll.

Yes, there is truth in advertising and get ad hommed/insulted/mindread 15 times by him, shame on him. 16. shame on me. Or perhaps a lower number.

[Skepdick]

Moronic claim: When we use linear/temporal logic, any is entails every ought, because every future is a possible future.

This is moronic for two reasons.

1 Moral assertions aren't temporal in scope. They have nothing to say about possible futures. An ought is an ought is an ought is an ought.

How stupid can you get?!? Of course ought-claims are temporal. Ought claims are only about the future! What else would they be about?!? The past is immutable.

Only the future could be some way if it ought to be that way.

2 If any is entails every ought, then 'water is H2O' entails 'therefore, abortion is morally wrong' and 'therefore, abortion is not morally wrong'.

What a reductionist moron you are. IS amounts to ALL that IS. Water is only a small part of the present.

But - reminder to self: don't feed the unpleasant, intellectually-challenged and self-confessed dick troll.

Unpleasant truths; or pleasant lies. It's pretty obvious which one you prefer...