is/ought, final answer

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=498561 time=1614095199 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498527 time=1614092737 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=498469 time=1614087280 user_id=11800]
It's not a moral ought, it's goal-derived.
[/quote]

All OUGHTs are goal-derived. Moral ones are the ones that work but can't normally be explicitly defended.
[/quote]
Do you understand that you are trying to derive an ought from an is, not from a goal?

Do you have any conception of why anyone would want to do that? Bear in mind that Skepdick doesn't really, and it's hard to say whether Vestibule can remember either.
[/quote]

A goal is a contingent IS. IF we want X, THEN we OUGHT to do Y.

That's the theory. In practice, every "thing", moral or otherwise, has a specific intent from which it is birthed. If you want X, your OUGHT is ready. If you want something else, there's no OUGHT for you here, but you'll have one nonetheless.

Things, moral rules or otherwise, only exist in the mind, despite some having an external correlate they defer to.

[FlashDangerpants]

All OUGHTs are goal-derived. Moral ones are the ones that work but can't normally be explicitly defended.

Do you understand that you are trying to derive an ought from an is, not from a goal?

Do you have any conception of why anyone would want to do that? Bear in mind that Skepdick doesn't really, and it's hard to say whether Vestibule can remember either.

A goal is a contingent IS. IF we want X, THEN we OUGHT to do Y.

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?

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=498604 time=1614097213 user_id=11800]
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?
[/quote]

You answered the question in itself, they're basing their beliefs in what they want rather than where brute rationally takes you. The belief that anything ultimate is real rather than metaphorical is an epistemological error widely shared. If you're asking why they'd want to do it that way, you'd have to ask them.

I don't want to define moral fact. I a simply ask myself what the term is supposed to be good for and then find the balance point in definition that does the best job of accounting for that pragmatic necessity. Aka deconstruction.

OUGHTs exist. If you don't start there, what are you doing but mind games? Searching for a priori Platonic OUGHTs is senseless since all things are mind-bound.

So where do they come from? The work they do is to organize our activity along the lines of what we expect produces the best society. Or they can be applied at lower levels of scrutiny, scale, or intensity and called morality or friendship or politeness, etc. In order to do that work, OUGHTs must be derived from intent. Any "what is the nature of" question is semantic. What is the term for?

[Terrapin Station]

A goal is a contingent IS. IF we want X, THEN we OUGHT to do Y.

It doesn't actually follow from wanting something that we ought to do what's required to achieve it.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't actually follow from wanting something that we ought to do what's required to achieve it.

It doesn't follow from wanting to quench my thirst that I should drink a thirst-quenching drink.

Queue: edge/corner case.

We have reached Aspie-Retard Rock bottom.

[Terrapin Station]

It doesn't follow from wanting to quench my thirst that I should drink a thirst-quenching drink.

Correct. We have to add that you have a disposition to do what you need to do to achieve that craving in this instance.

Queue: edge/corner case.

"Following" can't have exceptions.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498638 time=1614100438 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498599 time=1614097015 user_id=15238]
A goal is a contingent IS. IF we want X, THEN we OUGHT to do Y.
[/quote]

It doesn't actually follow from wanting something that we ought to do what's required to achieve it.
[/quote]

All that's saying is that other priorities might intervene. OUGHTs are indistinguishable from wants.

If you want something you ought to do what it takes to try to get it, all else being equal. If we want something it becomes a balance of priorities.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't want to define moral fact.

Then you don't need to derive a particular ought from any particular set of facts, and thus you never had an is/ought problem. It's SEP.

OUGHTs exist.

No they don't.

[Terrapin Station]

A goal is a contingent IS. IF we want X, THEN we OUGHT to do Y.

It doesn't actually follow from wanting something that we ought to do what's required to achieve it.

All that's saying is that other priorities might intervene. OUGHTs are indistinguishable from wants.

No. It's saying that it also requires a strong enough disposition, so that it serves as a motivation that actually puts things into action, to achieve a desire or goal (or from someone else, it requires the opinion that people should work to achieve their desires/goals). That someone ought to work to achieve a desire or goal they have doesn't logically follow from having a desire or goal. People think it does (follow) because the opinion that one should work to realize desires or goals is so common, and people don't analyze the fact that that's just a disposition that they have.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498653 time=1614101718 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498650 time=1614101407 user_id=15238]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498638 time=1614100438 user_id=12582]


It doesn't actually follow from wanting something that we ought to do what's required to achieve it.
[/quote]

All that's saying is that other priorities might intervene. OUGHTs are indistinguishable from wants.
[/quote]

No. It's saying that it also requires a strong enough disposition, so that it serves as a motivation that actually puts things into action, to achieve a desire or goal (or from someone else, it requires the opinion that people should work to achieve their desires/goals). That someone ought to work to achieve a desire or goal they have [i]doesn't logically follow[/i] from having a desire or goal. People think it does (follow) because the opinion that one should work to realize desires or goals is so common, and people don't analyze the fact that that's just a disposition that they have.
[/quote]

You answer before i'm finishing editing! But anyhow, now you're discussing the difference between conscious and subconscious wants. If your subconscious wants it despite what you want to want, you're not claiming it as your own - as part of your self. Actions taken in spite of lack of consent confer no moral implications on you. It's different from purely reflexive actions only in scale. And then you do the same math for the other person and compare results.

[Terrapin Station]

All that's saying is that other priorities might intervene. OUGHTs are indistinguishable from wants.

No. It's saying that it also requires a strong enough disposition, so that it serves as a motivation that actually puts things into action, to achieve a desire or goal (or from someone else, it requires the opinion that people should work to achieve their desires/goals). That someone ought to work to achieve a desire or goal they have doesn't logically follow from having a desire or goal. People think it does (follow) because the opinion that one should work to realize desires or goals is so common, and people don't analyze the fact that that's just a disposition that they have.

You answer before i'm finishing editing! But anyhow, now you're discussing the difference between conscious and subconscious wants. If your subconscious wants it despite what you want to want, you're not claiming it as your own - as part of your self. Actions taken in spite of lack of consent confer no moral implications on you. It's different from purely reflexive actions only in scale. And then you do the same math for the other person and compare results.

No, I'm not saying anything about that. I don't buy that there are unconscious or "subconscious" mental phenomena in the first place (or rather, I at least don't buy that there's a good reason to believe as much).

It's as simple as this: say that I desire to own a nice three-piece suit. Does that somehow logically imply that I should take whatever actions are necessary to own a nice three-piece suit? No. There's no logical implication there. It's only persons' dispositions--their intuitive opinions about this--that says that I should take the actions necessary to meet my desire. But not everyone is going to have such a disposition regarding what I ought to do relative to my desire. Some people will be neutral about it. Some will think that I ought to not fulfill my desire, because they think it's a bad idea. And so on--I can also be neutral about it or think that I shouldn't fulfill my desire. No one can be right or wrong about any normative here, because there are no objective normative facts, there is no logical implication, etc.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498656 time=1614103175 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=498654 time=1614102850 user_id=15238]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=498653 time=1614101718 user_id=12582]


No. It's saying that it also requires a strong enough disposition, so that it serves as a motivation that actually puts things into action, to achieve a desire or goal (or from someone else, it requires the opinion that people should work to achieve their desires/goals). That someone ought to work to achieve a desire or goal they have [i]doesn't logically follow[/i] from having a desire or goal. People think it does (follow) because the opinion that one should work to realize desires or goals is so common, and people don't analyze the fact that that's just a disposition that they have.
[/quote]

You answer before i'm finishing editing! But anyhow, now you're discussing the difference between conscious and subconscious wants. If your subconscious wants it despite what you want to want, you're not claiming it as your own - as part of your self. Actions taken in spite of lack of consent confer no moral implications on you. It's different from purely reflexive actions only in scale. And then you do the same math for the other person and compare results.
[/quote]

No, I'm not saying anything about that. I don't buy that there are unconscious or "subconscious" mental phenomena in the first place (or rather, I at least don't buy that there's a good reason to believe as much).

It's as simple as this: say that I desire to own a nice three-piece suit. Does that somehow logically imply that I should take whatever actions are necessary to own a nice three-piece suit? No. There's no logical implication there. It's only persons' dispositions--their intuitive opinions about this--that says that I should take the actions necessary to meet my desire. But not everyone is going to have such a disposition regarding what I ought to do relative to my desire. Some people will be neutral about it. Some will think that I ought to not fulfill my desire, because they think it's a bad idea. And so on--I can also be neutral about it or think that I shouldn't fulfill my desire. No one can be right or wrong about any normative here, because there are no objective normative facts, there is no logical implication, etc.
[/quote]

You're still ignoring priority. All else being equal you should get the suit. If it interferes with higher priorities you shouldn't. If you can't decide you should gather more information.

[Terrapin Station]

You answer before i'm finishing editing! But anyhow, now you're discussing the difference between conscious and subconscious wants. If your subconscious wants it despite what you want to want, you're not claiming it as your own - as part of your self. Actions taken in spite of lack of consent confer no moral implications on you. It's different from purely reflexive actions only in scale. And then you do the same math for the other person and compare results.

No, I'm not saying anything about that. I don't buy that there are unconscious or "subconscious" mental phenomena in the first place (or rather, I at least don't buy that there's a good reason to believe as much).

It's as simple as this: say that I desire to own a nice three-piece suit. Does that somehow logically imply that I should take whatever actions are necessary to own a nice three-piece suit? No. There's no logical implication there. It's only persons' dispositions--their intuitive opinions about this--that says that I should take the actions necessary to meet my desire. But not everyone is going to have such a disposition regarding what I ought to do relative to my desire. Some people will be neutral about it. Some will think that I ought to not fulfill my desire, because they think it's a bad idea. And so on--I can also be neutral about it or think that I shouldn't fulfill my desire. No one can be right or wrong about any normative here, because there are no objective normative facts, there is no logical implication, etc.

You're still ignoring priority. All else being equal you should get the suit. If it interferes with higher priorities you shouldn't. If you can't decide you should gather more information.

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

[Skepdick]

Correct. We have to add that you have a disposition to do what you need to do to achieve that craving in this instance.

I have a disposition towards not dying from dehydration?

NO FUCKING SHIT!

"Following" can't have exceptions.

How have you deduced that criterion?

[Terrapin Station]

How have you deduced that criterion?

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