Oughts are derived from the effects of is'

[JSRS01]

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.

 

[Wesley]

I am certainly not an expert, but I will type my thoughts anyway and leave others to tell me if I am wrong.

My understanding is you get an ought from an is when a direction is chosen.

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.

 

Now, in the act of debating moral propositions, people claim several goals and ppropositions. So for your example, they are alive and not killing themselves. This means that they prefer life to going and killing themselves, thus they ought not to stand in front of a fast bus. However, some other random person who is about to kill themselves may not have that preference. However, if anyone is alive and debating with you, then it is their preference.

Through use of debate and the other person claiming moral propositions that you then evaluate by UPB is my understanding of how you get an ought from an is. If they do not debate and never use a moral proposition, then you are not debating with them about morality, and thus the entire discussion would not have happened.

[JSRS01]

"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]

 

[MrCapitalism]

Neither is the preference for life when stading in front of a bus going 60 miles an hour.

 

Why have you been up for 24 hours man?

[fingolfin]

 

"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]

 

 

But then aren't you changing the original context from "ought to go to LA" to "ought to go to LA quickly"?

I mean someone might even suggest going east first, to catch a plane, if you want to be quick. And conversely, if we remove quickly, then we might fly in the opposite direction, just for kicks or something.

Furthermore, if all we're saying is "if you want to go west, then [you should] go west" how do we go from opinion/suggestion to 'universally preferable'? Even 'ability to prefer (universally)' has issues, since we can never run a test on a species like that. So at best we might conclude: people tend to go places quickly if they want to go there. But they might also tend not to. Depending on the context.

Why not keep ought as an opinion, and simply justify one's opinion? E.g. "we should go to the beach". "Why?". "It'd be fun, plus it's sunny". There's nothing 'wrong' with these statements objectively. 'Wrong' here would simply mean, "I disagree, we should go [to the woods], and here's why ... bla bla".

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

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.

 

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.

[JSRS01]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[LovePrevails]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI56uydkAsQ[/media]

[Pepin]

(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 abas moving at 60mph because you will go to hell." One cannot prove this claim, therefore it is invalid.

 

The fact that the bus will kill you does not make the "ought" valid. It may be implied in that the person prefers to live, but it has to be stated explicitly in this argument for it to work. Ought statements relate goals and values to action. Saying:

 

"You ought not to stand in front a bus moving at 60mph because you prefer not to die and the crash will cause death" is a valid use of an ought because the claim is clearly connected to the preference of the person. If the person wants to die, it would be valid to see "you ought to stand in front of a bus moving at 60mph if you want to die", or you could describe any other action that will certainly bring death.

 

If someone believes in Christianity and prefers to go to heaven, then you can say "since you believe Christianity is true and you want to go to heaven, then you ought to follow the tenants of Christianity". The validity of the statement simply hinges on the believe and preference of the person, and how it relates to the ought. Certainly this example objectively is false for so many reasons such as the inability to follow contradictory rules, but at face value this is a valid use of an ought argument.

 

 

 

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.

 

The statement "people universally prefer living to dying" I think is difficult to substantiate. A retort I can see is "if you prefer death, then why are you dead right now?", to which I'd respond "if you want to buy a new house, then why don't you have a house right now?". There is a temporal component to decisions, and the preference for death may also involve a component of preference of time and place. It isn't like a preference for truth, which has no temporal component due to being universal by definition.

 

I think you already pretty much understand and agree with the first two paragraphs, so provided I'm right, I think I'm just helping in clarifying a few points. My main point of contention is that the preference for living is not UPB related and preferences cannot be implied because the validity of the ought is inseparable from the preference.