Kant: No Ought From Is

[Veritas Aequitas]

The majority commonly identify [blindly and ignorantly] Kant's morality as deontological, i.e. about imposing rigid rules and laws.

To the contrary, here is Kant's words on No Ought From Is [NOFI],

• Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what-ought-to-be-done from what-is-done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter [what-is-done] is circumscribed. CPR: A318 B375

What Kant had set out to do was the establishment of Morality-Proper which the majority [even expert philosophers] has unfortunately failed to grasp thoroughly.

In rejection of NOFI, Kant's model of Morality is based on reason and rationality but with current knowledge can be traced to Objective Moral Facts, i.e. a matter of fact.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

[Advocate]

Morality exists, therefore moral facts exist.

There is nowhere for moral facts to come from except what is (including material facts, personal desires, and social priorities, not just personal acts).

[DPMartin]

Morality exists, therefore moral facts exist.

There is nowhere for moral facts to come from except what is (including material facts, personal desires, and social priorities, not just personal acts).

na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

[Iwannaplato]

The majority commonly identify [blindly and ignorantly] Kant's morality as deontological, i.e. about imposing rigid rules and laws.

They do. Could you cite some poll or something.

To the contrary, here is Kant's words on No Ought From Is [NOFI],

• Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what-ought-to-be-done from what-is-done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter [what-is-done] is circumscribed. CPR: A318 B375

Please explain how that quote is an argument against deontology. It is precisely saying that tradition, custom, current practice cannot be used as the authority for determining what ought to be done. You may be correct about Kant, but that sentence is NOT an argument against deontology. It is an argument against a specific kind of deontology, one based on tradition. They are other types.

[Agent Smith]

I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.

[Iwannaplato]

2.4 Deontological Theories and Kant
If any philosopher is regarded as central to deontological moral theories, it is surely Immanuel Kant. Indeed, each of the branches of deontological ethics—the agent-centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian.

The agent-centered deontologist can cite Kant’s locating the moral quality of acts in the principles or maxims on which the agent acts and not primarily in those acts’ effects on others. For Kant, the only thing unqualifiedly good is a good will (Kant 1785). The patient-centered deontologist can, of course, cite Kant’s injunction against using others as mere means to one’s end (Kant 1785). And the contractualist can cite, as Kant’s contractualist element, Kant’s insistence that the maxims on which one acts be capable of being willed as a universal law—willed by all rational agents (Kant 1785). (See generally the entry on Kant.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Skepdick]

na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

You have this so backwards it's not even funny. Morality is just as much as what we experience (more human well-being) as the things we don't exierience - less poverty, less war/violence, less disease.

Morality is experienced - you are living an experiencing the protective safety net of thousands of years of human morality and moral progress. You have instant access to all the world's knowledge, doctors, medicine, food, shelter and all the other perks of an evolved human society which has internalised thousands of years of hard-learned lessons.

You've just taken it all for granted because you want it to be more readily perceptible and tangible.

[Skepdick]

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.

Every time you look at morality through a reductionist lens (such as physics, biology, sociology; ethics;) etc you will always fail at figuring it out.

Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism. And philosophy amounts to nothing more than linguistic reductionism.

You are wasting your time trying to define the ineffable.

[Agent Smith]

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.

I'm afraid Kant had something else in mind when he said whatever it was that he said about is-ought. There really is no issue at all with an ought from an is unless Kant's suggesting/implying the arbitratiness of the link between the two.

[DPMartin]

na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

You have this so backwards it's not even funny. Morality is just as much as what we experience (more human well-being) as the things we don't exierience - less poverty, less war/violence, less disease.

Morality is experienced - you are living an experiencing the protective safety net of thousands of years of human morality and moral progress. You have instant access to all the world's knowledge, doctors, medicine, food, shelter and all the other perks of an evolved human society which has internalised thousands of years of hard-learned lessons.

You've just taken it all for granted because you want it to be more readily perceptible and tangible.

“Morality is experienced” is not a fact but a philosophy pushed by guys like Kant, who in his day was in amongst the “enlightenment” during times like the American and French revolutions where in France the worshiped reason and liberty as gods until Napoleon toke charge. So no, morality isn’t experience maybe one wants their perception of experience to equal some kind of morality but that’s a desire of the beholder. Again, morals are the agreement of the agreed. No experience necessary, and nature has no morals only its existence and animal survival.

[Skepdick]

“Morality is experienced” is not a fact...

Yes, it's a fact. In exactly the same sanse as "gravity is experienced" is a fact. It has tangible consequences!

When you experience healthcare (doctors and nurses trying to keep your ass healthy and alive) that's morality in action.

If you can't see all the moral behaviour everywhere, all around you, and you don't recognize how you benefit from it - then yeah... you aren't experiencing it because you are taking it for granted.

[Iwannaplato]

“Morality is experienced” is not a fact...

Yes, it's a fact. In exactly the same sanse as "gravity is experienced" is a fact. It has tangible consequences!

When you experience healthcare (doctors and nurses trying to keep your ass healthy and alive) that's morality in action.

If you can't see all the moral behaviour everywhere, all around you, and you don't recognize how you benefit from it - then yeah... you aren't experiencing it because you are taking it for granted.

Wait, someone is denying that morality exists? Wow.

[DPMartin]

“Morality is experienced” is not a fact...

Yes, it's a fact. In exactly the same sanse as "gravity is experienced" is a fact. It has tangible consequences!

When you experience healthcare (doctors and nurses trying to keep your ass healthy and alive) that's morality in action.

If you can't see all the moral behaviour everywhere, all around you, and you don't recognize how you benefit from it - then yeah... you aren't experiencing it because you are taking it for granted.

it seems Your argument has nothing to do with “No Ought From Is”

lets see; morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. note principles. not experience. also, principles are the specifics of law such as the US constitution, or ten commandments which are a covenant which is an agreement same with the constitution, an agreement between a gov and its people.
What you experience maybe a person’s adherence or none adherence to the laws of the land, the principles the people of the land agree to, or morals.

and healthcare isn't a true example of morals or principles, people work for money if they didn't get paid with real money they would be there to provided health services, nor the hospitals nor the ambulances nor the doctors nor the medicine.
The idea that one is entitled healthcare is a matter of agreements one is in. such as insurance or gov. provided so on and so forth. Nothing moral about it, other than whether or not the parties in the agreement honor the agreement.

also gravity is not a principle or moral, it physical energy experienced.

[DPMartin]

oops