JSRS01

I do not see an "ought" being derived here. I see an "ought not". Can you provide an example of a positive, rather than negative, action that can be derived from reality? Most of the valid claims made by Stefan are "ought nots". Don't murder, don't rape, don't steal. "Honour thy Father" is an example of "ought", but the claim is arbitrary, not derived from reality. Secondly, I don't see a compelling moral context for "standing in front of a bus". It seems too personal. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, just that a more compelling claim would include an effect on others: "You should not stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph because it will traumatize the passengers to see your head splatter on the wind-shield." Of course, this still fails the "ought" vs "ought not" test. I think you have quite the task ahead if you choose to continue the pursuit. It is an old problem, which has not been solved, to the best of my knowledge. You're right. it is an ought not. I need to think on this a bit more.

"For instance, If you want to go to LA from Austin, then you ought to go west. However, without the goal of going to LA, there is nothing inherent in "LA IS west of Austin" that says I ought to go to LA." Right. But the effects(quicker trip,more efficient,etc) of the is (LA is west of Austion) is the reason you ought to go west to go from Austin to LA.[because going east would take longer(let alone going north or south, which would result in never ending doom),costs more reasources,etc. and that is not preferable]

So maybe I'm just tired(up for 24+ hours) and I'm thinking irrationally, but I was reflecting on Hume's law while rereading UPB: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics, and it dawned on me when Stef said: " I fully accept the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought.” Valid moral rules cannot be directly derived from the existence of anything in reality." That oughts cannot directly be derived from an is, and the key word here is directly. I realized that it may be possible, even true, for an ought to be derived from the effects of an is. So given that UPB is a true and valid framework, we can use UPB to discern the validity of any statement that asserts an ought derived from the effects of an is. Example: Standing in front of a bus moving at 60mph. (Ought directly derived from is) "You should not stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph." One cannot prove whether or not one should based on any given detail. (Ought directly derived from effect of is) "You should not stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph because it will kill you." One can prove this claim, therefore it is valid. (Ought directly derived from effect of is) "You should not stand in front of a bas moving at 60mph because you will go to hell." One cannot prove this claim, therefore it is invalid. So because we can test and know if standing in front of a bus moving at 60mph will kill you, it is empirically veribiable and thus provable. And because living is universally preferable to dying, one can assert that: "You ought to not stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph if you wish to remain living". And because none of the other claims are provable they are invalid. So maybe I'm just misunderstanding the is-ought dichotomy, but the way I see it; you can derive an ought from knowing the effects of an is. And I want to note: I have no idea if this has been addressed before, I don't even know that this is all that profound(it's probably not); but if I'm on to something I figure it's best to share it with the FDR community.

This is perfect, thank you so much.

Thanks for the excellent responses guys. I've read UPB: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics a few times but I couldn't find an explicit definition for UPB, which has caused some trouble when debating the validity of UPB/NAP with those who deny objective morality.

Out of pure curiousity, I'd like to know the general definition of UPB.