Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_ynt30e in philosophy
Reply to comment by Velociraptortillas in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3
How are you ever going to get an ought statement without having is statements to underpin it?
No one really denies that is statements can be relevant or even necessary for moral evaluation, just that they aren’t sufficient.
What else could be used to inform an ought statement other than something which is ultimately a type of fact?
People disagree what/if moral facts are. But it seems pretty hard to argue they are no different from empirical facts (what was being called is statements).
People disagreeing on something doesn't get you to there being no facts about it though. This seems like a non-sequitur to me.
I'm not sure you've really addressed my question. Perhaps you could give an example?
You're not. That's not where the divide exists.
Is are facts.
Ought are decisions, or intentions if you like.
They are not the same thing at all.
Facts, naturally, may inform decisions, but they do not and cannot dictate them.
I'm not sure what an ought is in this context then. I thought an ought statement would be something like "you ought not drink sea water".
Could you give me a better example?
Sure!
Here's a fact:
It is raining.
SO
I ought to wear galoshes.
OR
I ought to take my shoes off and jump in puddles.
OR
Who cares? I'm not changing my routine.
One fact, three entirely opposing decisions. Facts may have bearing on decisions, they do not dictate them. In the first two cases, the fact informs two opposite decisions - keep your feet dry, go jump in puddles. In the third case, the fact exists, but holds no influence and in this way, is the opposite of the first two decisions.
I disagree, because whatever ought you go with is ultimately going to be determined by underlying facts of the matter.
For instance, your first example - if you decide that you ought to take your shoes off and go jumping in puddles, then that decision is going to be predicated on is statements.
I ought to go jumping in puddles because it is the case that I'd get more enjoyment out of that than the other options, and it is the case that I value my enjoyment more highly than anything else right now.
How could you ever get an ‘is’ statement without ‘ought’ statements to dictate what you accept as evidence?
I would use reason to determine what I accept as evidence.
As well you should; but, that just proves my point.
I thought your point was to show that I need an ought to inform the answer?
Yes.
Reason operates by the use of complex series of ‘ought’ statements—standards, biases, criteria, etc.—to discern what is acceptable; the appeal to reason itself rests on the claim that, in our selection of evidence (or just in general), we ought to be reasonable.
Oh that's interesting.
My response to that would be - yes, we ought to be reasonable because it is the case that we (or at least, I) value reason.
Good riposte; but, does that argument not depend on the claim that our actions ought to be consistent with our values?
There’s also a good discussion to be had there exploring the question of why you/we value reason (and whether we ought to do so), just as an aside.
Well, that's the question isn't it?
I don't think so. I think the question is the exact opposite.
Then what is the question?
The question that underpins the ought/is distinction is "how could you ever get an ought from an is?" Or more concretely, "you can't get an ought from an is."
Well, yeah. You said the question was the opposite, so I'm asking what that is.
The one in my previous comment.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments