On the Is-Ought Relationship

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

Impenitent
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by Impenitent » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:37 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
Logical fallacies aren't science. They only tell what a few people thinks is fair or not in reasoning. Most of the fallacies are no more absolute than the rules of a Chess-game.

There's nothing wrong with equating ought with "better than alternatives", it's reinterpreting a word by burying the old meaning (which is/was rather limited).
Logical fallacies aren't science?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

the rules of a chess game called philosophy?

but who needs meaning? let's reinterpret everything... it's double plus good!

-Imp

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:44 pm

You are taking things to the extreme. This particular case fitting to the purpose it serves.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by prof » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:46 am

Impenitent wrote:preachers of ethical systems ought to be silenced
-Imp
:roll:


:twisted: Those preachers, those who introduce new ethical systems, and those who reinterpret things, ought to be convicted of impiety, of corrupting the youth, and ought to be forced to drink a cup of hemlock !!!

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by prof » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:36 am

Impenitent wrote:
I am not convinced one may derive an ought from an is...

besides, if one could proclaim any ought from any is, why not the one I perscribe?

...you may try to turn off the alarm clock, ...

-Imp
Hi, Impenitent

There is a misunderstanding here of what I wrote. You say, "if one could proclaim any ought from any is..." but that is not how I defined the notion of "ought", using Logic. I said - with reference to the moral ought - that what one ought to do is what intersects (or overlaps) with one's Self.

Think of two circles in an Euler Diagram: one of them is your empirically-verifiable conduct, and the other is your true Self, your real Self (the generous, open-hearted, talented, eminently-reasonable, ethical self trying to come out and express itself.) That is your artist within. That is the part of you that wants to make a difference.

Where the two circles intersect is what you "ought to do." In other words, you ought to be yourself; you ought to be true to your true self. Shakespeare knew this many years ago when he penned:

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." - -------{Hamlet, Act One, Scene III}

Practical "oughts" if they apply to individual persons I consider to be moral oughts, for they are proposing how to maximize the value in life, and, as you know from reading my work, this is the basis for Ethics: IF one wants to have a life of quality, of maximum value, then one takes seriously the principles of Ethics, and makes them into a personal code of conduct. One sees them in the obligatory mode ...i.e., takes them personally.
If, for example, one of the principles says Be authentic: don't be a phony, then a person who aspires to be of good character says to himself, or herself, "I'm determine to be authentic. That's me ! I will be authentic."

The derived principles of a science of Ethics would be equivalent to what people used to call The Moral Law.


And furthermore, I do not understand your reference to "turn off the alarm clock." Would you please be so kind as to clarify? How is that relevant :?: to the initial post in this thread, which has as its goal to define the moral "ought to" with some exactitude.

Impenitent
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by Impenitent » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:18 am

mysticism with your equivocation now?

trying to compare yourself to Socrates?

you don't understand my dogmatic references "professor"?

-Imp

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by prof » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:17 pm

Impenitent wrote:mysticism with your equivocation now?

trying to compare yourself to Socrates?

you don't understand my dogmatic references "professor"?

-Imp
You're right: I don't. Good luck to you and to your dogma.

There is no mysticism in my system of ethics. "Morality", as defined in this system, is a technical term: it is a relationship between one's (conceptual) self-identity and one's (observable) conduct. However even the self-identity (self-image, the Self, for short) is measurable by good tests [found in the Buros Manual of Psychological Tests], especially the H.V.I., (also known as the HVP) which measures some 60 character features, and which has been used for over 40 years now by psychiatrists, and therapists. Details about the test are found in Appendix One of my text
ETHICS: A College Course. See - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7

I wish for you a quality life !

Impenitent
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by Impenitent » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:36 pm

prof wrote:
Impenitent wrote:mysticism with your equivocation now?

trying to compare yourself to Socrates?

you don't understand my dogmatic references "professor"?

-Imp
You're right: I don't. Good luck to you and to your dogma.

There is no mysticism in my system of ethics. "Morality", as defined in this system, is a technical term: it is a relationship between one's (conceptual) self-identity and one's (observable) conduct. However even the self-identity (self-image, the Self, for short) is measurable by good tests [found in the Buros Manual of Psychological Tests], especially the H.V.I., (also known as the HVP) which measures some 60 character features, and which has been used for over 40 years now by psychiatrists, and therapists. Details about the test are found in Appendix One of my text
ETHICS: A College Course. See - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7

I wish for you a quality life !
I wish you actually knew philosophy, "professor..." (btw, it was Kant's dogmatic slumber)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

-Imp

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:47 pm

Prof, no reply for my first comments? O.o they were very constructive the way I see it, so no reason to ignore me :'(

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by prof » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:01 pm

Impenitent wrote:
prof wrote:
Impenitent wrote:mysticism with your equivocation now?

trying to compare yourself to Socrates?

you don't understand my dogmatic references "professor"?

-Imp
You're right: I don't. Good luck to you and to your dogma.

There is no mysticism in my system of ethics. "Morality", as defined in this system, is a technical term: it is a relationship between one's (conceptual) self-identity and one's (observable) conduct. However even the self-identity (self-image, the Self, for short) is measurable by good tests [found in the Buros Manual of Psychological Tests], especially the H.V.I., (also known as the HVP) which measures some 60 character features, and which has been used for over 40 years now by psychiatrists, and therapists. Details about the test are found in Appendix One of my text
ETHICS: A College Course. See - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7

I wish for you a quality life !
I wish you actually knew philosophy, "professor..." (btw, it was Kant's dogmatic slumber)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

-Imp
I wish you knew more about Kant's treatise of 1795, Zum Ewigen Frieden, published when Kant was 71. And I wish it for the general populace too. He was very wise at that time ...had 9 more years to live. This discussion was not merely an academic exercise but had omething terribly important to say to us today, in the age of drones and of cyberterrorism.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by prof » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:04 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:Prof, no reply for my first comments? O.o they were very constructive the way I see it, so no reason to ignore me :'(
Hi, Voice

Thank you for your kind words.

Good luck with you own theory of ethics and needs.

Your remarks were indeed constructive. And I appreciate them.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: On the Is-Ought Relationship

Post by The Voice of Time » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:44 am

prof wrote:Good luck with you own theory of ethics and needs.
btw, with so much answering I've done on your threads you should answer mine here on this forum! I only deserve it! Half the threads I make are never answered or answered only with one or two blunt sentences never giving rise to further discussion. You seem to have some brains, why don't you try to tackle sportly your rival on his own ground?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests