Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:49 pm
I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called
is-ought problem.
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], groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.
However there are biological oughts for all humans [even most living organisms], the oughtness to breathe or oughtness to drink water, oughtness to ingest food.
Such oughts are a matter of fact which can be verified and justified scientifically.
For all normal humans, such oughts are spontaneous and there is no need for enforcements nor rules to dictate these oughts.
They are very subtle; there are biological oughts that are related to morality that are represented by neural correlates within all humans albeit they are not active in the majority of people. But there is no denial these biological moral oughts existing objectively as a matter of fact.
Problem is, for most it is quite a task to identify and recognize them.
Whilst Kant rejected opinionated oughts, he had indirectly presented such 'biological' [human nature] moral oughts.