OUGHT from IS is Possible

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:26 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:35 am

No I have not advocated ANY moral system. I was staying on the topic, which includes two concepts (is and ought), which you have failed to understand.
You are jumping to conclusion.
I understand Hume's no "ought" from "is."
But I had argued Hume's "ought" from "is" is obvious and confined to the rationalism versus empiricism dichotomy.

You are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is."
It is obvious black cannot be white.
"Is" and 'ought' are in different philosophical realms from a dualistic perspective.
But there are alternative views to the above.

It was Kant who woke up from his dogmatic slumber [rationalism dogmatism], to abandon his dogmatic rationalism and went one step deeper to reconcile "ought" with "is" for pragmatic reason and proposed his System Approach to morality and ethics.

Here is one clue to the above point where Kant reconciled 'ought' to 'is';
  • No duality of Is and Ought can be found in Kant's philosophy for the very simple reason that, for Kant, the moral norm (the moral Ought, the moral law) emanates from reason in its function as practical reason, the very same reason whose function it is to know what is.
    For Kant says explicitly in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals that practical reason, the moral legislator, is fundamentally the same as theoretical reason: ‘I require of a critical examination of a pure practical reason, if it is to be complete, that its unity with the speculative be subject to presentation under a common principle, because in the final analysis there can be but one and the same reason which must be differentiated only in application’.
    https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/ ... chapter-18
Is it noted you did not bother to widen your philosophical range to take note and understand [not necessary agree with] alternative views. If you do not consider alternative views [especially from one of the greatest philosopher of all times] how do you know your views are sound and permanent.

What is critical is to step up and view the two opposites from a complementarity perspective just as how the Taoists reconcile Yin with Yang and Quantum physics deal with polar opposites using complementarity. This critical step will enable one to translate theory into practice and producing positive results.

When you are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is" then one is paralyzed without the ability to move into productive actions.
Please refer to the posts I made above.
That shallow and narrow minded view of "is-ought"?

My last post was to justify what is intended in the OP.

nothing
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by nothing » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:25 am

You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.

It is a difference between belief and knowledge:
I ought to believe because x ...
I ought not to believe x because I (now) know y ...

wherein x -> y via trying a belief-based assumption and finding/knowing it false.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:46 am

nothing wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:25 am
You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.
Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.

In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.
Those variables we wish to maximise are ought-to.
Those variables we wish to minimise are ought-not

We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.

nothing
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by nothing » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:14 pm

Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.
They are antithetical, thus "ought" is just as much of a sub-set of "ought not". You can not have one without the other.

It's like trying to say "omega" is a sub-set of "alpha" - no it is not, they rely on one another in order to mutually co-exist.
In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.
What in the f*ck is "the moral calculus"?
And who is "we"?

There is no discernible/agreeable objective moral standard, thus calculation of such is intrinsically relative thus invariably subject to conflict. This proves itself daily:

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
A and B annihilate.
C knows neither knew from which tree they ate.

A and B are any theoretical "moral standard" which, if when completely disagreeable, they start spilling blood. This is the problem of good and evil and how/why people who eat from the tree / "believe" to know it, manifest suffering and death to a certainty, according to the certainty to which they act on their "belief" to objectively know such a moral position as if god themselves. This is religion and patriarchal idol worship viz. Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.
A "believer" will "believe" they ought-to murder, and they ought-not-to educate (women, for example). Patriarchal men who abuse women take similar patriarchal religious idols as their "justification" for patriarchal swinery.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:16 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:46 am
nothing wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:25 am
You can not derive an ought from an is.

However, you can derive an ought not from an is.
Category error. "Ought not" is a sub-set of ought.

In the moral calculus oughts are all the moral variables we wish to optimise for.
Those variables we wish to maximise are ought-to.
Those variables we wish to minimise are ought-not

We ought-not murder, but we ought-to educate.
Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:42 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:16 pm
Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!
I never said it does. The opposite is how it actually works.

Is follows from ought. By drawing a distinction between "ought" and "is" we are demanding change - we invent problems.

Definition of 'problem': things OUGHT to be different than they ARE.

Murder is a problem. Because we ought to have less murder.
If we were indifferent to murder it wouldn't be a problem.

Education is a problem. Because we ought to have more education.
If we were indifferent to education it wouldn't be a problem.

If you think "less murder" or "more education" requires justification - you are an idiot.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:42 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:16 pm
Indeed, but none necessarily follow from any is - at least not without some other form of justification.
Give it a try!
I never said it does. The opposite is how it actually works.

Is follows from ought. By drawing a distinction between "ought" and "is" we are demanding change - we invent problems.

Definition of 'problem': things OUGHT to be different than they ARE.

Murder is a problem.
Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.
Because we ought to have less murder.
If we were indifferent to murder it wouldn't be a problem.
Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.

Education is a problem. Because we ought to have more education.
If we were indifferent to education it wouldn't be a problem.

If you think "less murder" or "more education" requires justification - you are an idiot.
Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.
IN some cases more education is a waste of time.
Your judgement is way off.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:32 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.
It doesn't depend - it's a temporal claim, and therefore it's universal. Morality is only a particular case.

IS Present.
OUGHT Future.

At Present I don't have an ice-cream. In Future I want to have one.

How do I bridge the IS-OUGHT gap? With an ice-cream!
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.
"The US state" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the US state think it's ok to murder?
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.
"The Military" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the military think it's OK to murder citizens?
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
IN some cases more education is a waste of time.
Just because a rule has exceptions it doesn't make the rule invalid.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Your judgement is way off.
It's better calibrated than yours.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:32 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not necessarily. Depends. Depends on a particular ought; a moral code.
It doesn't depend - it's a temporal claim, and therefore it's universal. Morality is only a particular case.
Prove it!

IS Present.
OUGHT Future.
IS an opinion.
OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion

At Present I don't have an ice-cream. In Future I want to have one.
That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'

How do I bridge the IS-OUGHT gap? With an ice-cream!
Try Ben&Jerry's
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Some people are, and for them it is not a problem. For example the US state is indifferent to murder in many cases, and considers it to be unproblematic.
"The US state" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the US state think it's ok to murder?
Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not so.
Tell that to the US military who is happy to murder its own citizens.
"The Military" is an abstraction - it's made up of people. Do you think ALL people in the military think it's OK to murder citizens?
Most do what they are told. That is how an military ought to work I am told.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
IN some cases more education is a waste of time.
Just because a rule has exceptions it doesn't make the rule invalid.
It exactly makes all universal claims false, and that means all necessary links from an IS to an OUGHT. Which is exactly the point Hume was making.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Your judgement is way off.
It's better calibrated than yours.
Your calibration is crap.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:54 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
Prove it!
You want me to prove to you that Time exists? Idiot!
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
IS an opinion.
I don't have an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I want an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I buy an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I have an ice-cream - that's a fact.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion
What opinion?
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'
And I never said that it did.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.
Only idiots think like you.

Rules are prescriptive, not descriptive. Just because people commit murder doesn't make murder moral.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:54 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
Prove it!
You want me to prove to you that Time exists? Idiot!
Don't be a moron, You are better than that.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
IS an opinion.
I don't have an ice-cream - that's a fact.
There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.
I want an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I buy an ice-cream - that's a fact.
I have an ice-cream - that's a fact.
Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.
In fact they are all lies.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
OUGHT a suggested action in relation to that opinion
What opinion?
The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
That you do not have an ice dream does not mean that you ought to have one'
And I never said that it did.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Not relevant. An exception breaks all claims of universality.
Only idiots think like you.

Rules are prescriptive, not descriptive. Just because people commit murder doesn't make murder moral.
What is moral is contingent and opinionated.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:27 pm

In general people feel that people ought to do this or that. They then seeks our a collection of "IS" statements to try to justify imposing their so-called moral feelings on others.
Then they pretend that just because something IS that we OUGHT to act is some particular way.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:08 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
Don't be a moron, You are better than that.
You can start by practicing what you preach.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.
Did I say anything about the "importance" of me having ice-cream? No... I didn't.
Did I say anything about all me lacking ice-cream? No.... I didn't.

You are really struggling with your counter-argument
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.
Every one of those sentences was true. Their sequentiality is immaterial.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
In fact they are all lies.
That's not true.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.
Why the hell would I need to justify me wanting ice-cream?

The very notion of justifying my desires seems idiotic.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
What is moral is contingent and opinionated.
That is not true.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:09 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:08 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
Don't be a moron, You are better than that.
You can start by practicing what you preach.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
There are many other things you do not have. The fact is that you have CHOSEN this one out of an infinite list of possible things that you lack. Since that is not the most important thing you lack its relevance is an opinion.
Did I say anything about the "importance" of me having ice-cream? No... I didn't.
Did I say anything about all me lacking ice-cream? No.... I didn't.
THis is YOUR problem not mine!
ROLF
You are really struggling with your counter-argument
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
Not true, but more importantly not a necessary sequence.
Every one of those sentences was true. Their sequentiality is immaterial.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:24 pm
In fact they are all lies.
That's not true.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
The one chosen to justify the course of action you were going to take anyway.
Why the hell would I need to justify me wanting ice-cream?

The very notion of justifying my desires seems idiotic.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:48 pm
What is moral is contingent and opinionated.
That is not true.
You are getting pretty confused about all this.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:26 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:09 pm
THis is YOUR problem not mine!
ROLF
Do you even know the difference between "you" and "me"?

You are the one struggling with the is-ought gap. Not me.

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:09 pm
You are getting pretty confused about all this.
Yes, you are.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests