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, ...
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."
, 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 wil
l 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.