is/ought, final answer

[Skepdick]

That's what we're referring to--necessary implication. If there's an exception, there's not a necessary implication.

We who?

How have "we" deduced that that implications OUGHT to be necessary?

Why can't implications be sufficient?

[Terrapin Station]

That's what we're referring to--necessary implication. If there's an exception, there's not a necessary implication.

We who?

How have "we" deduced that that implications OUGHT to be necessary?

Why can't implications be sufficient?

"We"--the statistically normal, conventional sense of "following." It's not a deduction. It's something we can be talking about versus something else we could be talking about. Necessary implication is what we're talking about in the conventional sense of "follow(ing)."

Why are we not talking about something else instead? Because that's not what we're talking about.

[Skepdick]

"We"--the statistically normal, conventional sense of "following." It's not a deduction. It's something we can be talking about versus something else we could be talking about. Necessary implication is what we're talking about in the conventional sense of "follow(ing)."

Why are we not talking about something else instead? Because that's not what we're talking about.

In the conventional sense only scumbag more immoral than a pragmatist (such as myself) is an idealist (such as yourself).

Vaccines don't necessarily protect from COVID-19, but they sufficiently protect us from COVID-19.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Terrapin Station]

"We"--the statistically normal, conventional sense of "following." It's not a deduction. It's something we can be talking about versus something else we could be talking about. Necessary implication is what we're talking about in the conventional sense of "follow(ing)."

Why are we not talking about something else instead? Because that's not what we're talking about.

In the conventional sense only scumbag more immoral than a pragmatist (such as myself) is an idealist (such as yourself).

Vaccines don't necessarily protect from COVID-19, but they sufficiently protect us from COVID-19.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

If only that helped an "ought" follow from an "is," you might finally be saying something on-topic.

[Skepdick]

If only that helped an "ought" follow from an "is," you might finally be saying something on-topic.

It follows. We ought to vaccinate.

If you reject sufficiency due to lack of necessity you are immoral in book.

[Terrapin Station]

If only that helped an "ought" follow from an "is," you might finally be saying something on-topic.

It follows. We ought to vaccinate.

It's not a necessary implication. So no, not on the standard sense of "follow."

If you reject sufficiency due to lack of necessity you are immoral in book.

Cool story, bro.

[Skepdick]

If only that helped an "ought" follow from an "is," you might finally be saying something on-topic.

It follows. We ought to vaccinate.

It's not a necessary implication. So no, not on the standard sense of "follow."

If you reject sufficiency due to lack of necessity you are immoral in book.

Cool story, bro.

In the standard sense of "moral" you are immoral.

But there's no rock bottom more precious than the rock bottom where Philosophers decide to defend semantics over human well-being.

[Terrapin Station]

It follows. We ought to vaccinate.

It's not a necessary implication. So no, not on the standard sense of "follow."

If you reject sufficiency due to lack of necessity you are immoral in book.

Cool story, bro.

In the standard sense of "moral" you are immoral.

But there's no rock bottom more precious where Philosophers decide to defend semantics than human well-being.

In many opinions I have many views that are immoral, sure. What about it?

[Skepdick]

In many opinions I have many views that are immoral, sure. What about it?

Nothing about it.

Reification doesn't happen with debate. It happens through force.

Debate is just the pretence that you are being given a choice.

[Terrapin Station]

In many opinions I have many views that are immoral, sure. What about it?

Nothing about it.

Reification doesn't happen with debate. It happens through force.

Debate is just the pretense that you are being given a choice.

[Skepdick]

Ok, and why do you think it is that people who want to define moral fact would want to remove that contingent quality by deriving the ought directly from a fact rather than from a value?

Because they want to abdicate their free will.

If facts could decide morality for us, then we won't have to.

[Skepdick]

I'm not ignoring that. I'm simply saying that none of our dispositions along those lines are logically implied.

On par with abdicating your free will to logic, you are anthropomorphising logic.

The rules of logic are man-made.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=498720 time=1614121702 user_id=17350]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498674 time=1614109338 user_id=12582]
I'm not ignoring that. I'm simply saying that none of our dispositions along those lines are [i]logically[/i] implied.
[/quote]
On par with abdicating your free will to logic, you are anthropomorphising logic.

The rules of logic are man-made.
[/quote]

The rules of logic are descriptive of our experience of relationships that hold true 100% of the time. Would you like greater than 100% certainty for some reason?

Logic Describes the absoluteness of certain bits of reality

[Skepdick]

The rules of logic are descriptive of our experience of relationships that hold true 100% of the time.

No, they aren't. They are descriptive of the relations that are interesting to us.

Deductive logic promises 100% certainty, but that's only true within the domain of the deductive system.

Logic Describes the absoluteness of certain bits of reality

The world of logic is NOT the real world. Only idiots confuse the two.

Logic is an epistemic instrument. It's imperfect, but that's all the hairless ape has for navigating the infinite complexity of reality.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not ignoring that. I'm simply saying that none of our dispositions along those lines are logically implied.

On par with abdicating your free will to logic, you are anthropomorphising logic.

The rules of logic are man-made.

Then you can't very well claim that it's a person-independent fact that any "is" implies any "ought." Which is all I care about here--to dispel that myth.