You Cannot Get an "Is" Without an "Ought"

[WasatchMan]

This was an offhand comment in a recent Sam Harris podcast (http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/surviving-the-cosmos)  that I found very interesting for its implications on the relativistic "philosophies". This is obviously a turning on the head of the Hume statement that "you cannot get an ought from an is", which is used by moral relativists to try to say that you cannot derive value statements from facts about a reality. "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is.

 

This concept helps destroy moral relativism because it demonstrates that without certain, and specific values, you cannot discover anything about reality.  While this seems rather obvious, the implications that you cannot get an is without an ought proves that ideas are not relative, and that in fact, some ideas are superior to other.

[ResidingOnEarth]

I haven't heard of Sam Harris before.  From one FDR listener to another: do you recommend him?

 

Either way I've downloaded that podcast and will check him out!

[Donnadogsoth]

All "ought" statements are IF/THEN statements.  IF you want result X, THEN you do action X1.  IF you want result Y, THEN you do action Y1.  It doesn't matter how relativistic you get, the question always comes down to whether or not you want to do something, and what the consequences of doing that thing are.

 

All "is" statements do presume the person is logically sane, but logical sanity doesn't equal moral sanity.  An evil person can be thoroughly evil and yet still maintain the logic needed to agree with any given "is" statement.

 

Without the appeal to immortality, in some form, there is no reason you can give for an evil person who knows how to get away with it, to mend their ways.  Granted, an evil person who believed in immortality could still defy it, but in that case we are trusting in the Powers that Be to take care of the mess that person has made of their soul.

[labmath2]

I will have have to hear it context, but i can already see the problem with the statement. Facts about reality are independent of personal values.

[WasatchMan]

I haven't heard of Sam Harris before.  From one FDR listener to another: do you recommend him?

 

Either way I've downloaded that podcast and will check him out!

 

I like Sam Harris for being a deep thinker and comes off as genuinely wanting to get to the truth of things, so I would recommend him.

 

However, I would say some FDR listeners probably don't like him because of his arguments around determinism.

[dsayers]

This concept helps destroy moral relativism because it demonstrates that without certain, and specific values, you cannot discover anything about reality.

Is it that you're misrepresenting the material? Reality is objective while values are subjective. Therefore there could be no specific value that could help discover anything about reality.

 

While this seems rather obvious, the implications that you cannot get an is without an ought proves that ideas are not relative, and that in fact, some ideas are superior to other.

Superior in what way? The only way I can think of that the descriptor "superior" could be applied to "ideas" is in the context of more accurately describing the real world.

 

Also, "you cannot get an is without an ought" is an assertion and therefore could not serve as a proof of anything. We can observe what speed a car IS traveling at without any consideration as to what speed it ought to be traveling. So without having partaken of the material, I must confess that I have rejected it as it does not seem to accurately describe the real world.

 

As an aside, I'm not one for labels. So I'm not sure what "moral relativism" is. However, given that I understand that morality is both objective and simple, I cannot fathom that identifying the flaw in "moral relativism" would be relatively easy even without such claims as not being able to have an is without an ought.

[ResidingOnEarth]

However, I would say some FDR listeners probably don't like him because of his arguments around determinism.

 

I'd be interested to hear his arguments on determinism!  I know that Stef has concluded that we are not living in a deterministic universe, but I don't think he has made a good case for why he has that conclusion.  It's one of the few arguments I've heard from Stef that I don't think are sound.

 

I actually feel that we are living in a non-deterministic universe, but I have no proof of that and I don't have a good argument to support it.

 

One thing Stef has said which I do agree with is that victims of parental child abuse may be drawn to that idea of living in a deterministic universe as it removes moral culpability from their parents.  If that theory is true, that obviously does not prove that the universe is or is not deterministic.

[neeeel]

This is obviously a turning on the head of the Hume statement that "you cannot get an ought from an is", which is used by moral relativists to try to say that you cannot derive value statements from facts about a reality. 

 

I take it you disagree with Hume then?

[Will Torbald]

This was an offhand comment in a recent Sam Harris podcast (http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/surviving-the-cosmos)  that I found very interesting for its implications on the relativistic "philosophies". This is obviously a turning on the head of the Hume statement that "you cannot get an ought from an is", which is used by moral relativists to try to say that you cannot derive value statements from facts about a reality. "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is.

 

This concept helps destroy moral relativism because it demonstrates that without certain, and specific values, you cannot discover anything about reality.  While this seems rather obvious, the implications that you cannot get an is without an ought proves that ideas are not relative, and that in fact, some ideas are superior to other.

 

You can't say that a tree ought to be a tree just because it is a tree. It just happened to be a tree. If you listen to Harris, then he is saying that the tree had to be a tree because it was a tree, which is tautological. When you apply it to actions, it ends in similar problems. A man is running is not the same as it ought to run. It just happened to be running. Then he is saying that the running man ought to be a running man because it was running. It is, in a way, a very mechanistic and deterministic view of the world.

[ResidingOnEarth]

As an aside, I'm not one for labels. So I'm not sure what "moral relativism" is. However, given that I understand that morality is both objective and simple, I cannot fathom that identifying the flaw in "moral relativism" would be relatively easy even without such claims as not being able to have an is without an ought.

 

Moral relativism is a moral system which is not universal but only applies to a single individual or a group.  A moral relativist might say: "I believe that it is wrong to prohibit women from travelling freely.  However the degree to which women are prohibited from travelling freely in the Middle East is none of my business.  It's a different culture out there with different values.  Their idea of right and wrong is different from ours and I accept that."

 

That's been my long-standing understanding of the term anyway.  I could be wrong.

[dsayers]

Thanks, Residing. I assumed by its name that the lack of universality was likely its fundamental flaw.

[WasatchMan]

Is it that you're misrepresenting the material? Reality is objective while values are subjective. Therefore there could be no specific value that could help discover anything about reality.

 

So you think that you can discover truths about the universe while rejecting the scientific method?

 

 

Is it that you're misrepresenting the material? Reality is objective while values are subjective. Therefore there could be no specific value that could help discover anything about reality.

 

Superior because you can derive objective statements about the way things are (i.e. generate knowledge).  It is superior to know rain falls due to a scientific understanding of atmospheric conditions (which could be used to predict events) than to do a rain dance and think that is why it rains.  One is repeatable and talks about objective occurrences in reality - the other is just made up and provides zero knowledge on why it rains.

 

 

Also, "you cannot get an is without an ought" is an assertion and therefore could not serve as a proof of anything. We can observe what speed a car IS traveling at without any consideration as to what speed it ought to be traveling. So without having partaken of the material, I must confess that I have rejected it as it does not seem to accurately describe the real world.

 

 

Ok, tell me how you could get to an objective statement about reality (an is) without a statement about some behavior (the ought) that is required to get there.  (In order to observe the speed of a car IS traveling you ought to have a device, or methodology, that measures the speed.  If you don't have some ought you are saying you can determine the speed by tea leaves?)

 

 

As an aside, I'm not one for labels. So I'm not sure what "moral relativism" is. However, given that I understand that morality is both objective and simple, I cannot fathom that identifying the flaw in "moral relativism" would be relatively easy even without such claims as not being able to have an is without an ought.

 

Ok you are not for language?  In order to communicate you ought to adopt a language that can be used to communicate ideas between people, which includes "labels".

I take it you disagree with Hume then?

 

I am not entirely sure I disagree with Hume because I don't think that his statement was meant to be taken the way it has been.  I am not an expert enough on Hume to know.

[ResidingOnEarth]

Ok, tell me how you could get to an objective statement about reality (an is) without a statement about some behavior (the ought) that is required to get there.  (In order to observe the speed of a car IS traveling you ought to have a device, or methodology, that measures the speed.  If you don't have some ought you are saying you can determine the speed by tea leaves?)

 

It took me a few reads of this paragraph to understand why it is so hard to grok.  I have realised that the problem with your paragraph is that you have claimed that "ought" is about "behaviour".  In-fact, "ought" is about preferred behaviour.  So if you factor that into your example of the speeding car it becomes obvious that it doesn't make sense to claim there is a "preferred behaviour" needed to measure speed.  It is true that in order to measure the speed of a car there is necessary behaviour that a person must perform.  That's two uses of "is" though.  It is true that cars exist and can make relative movements.  It is true that a person can measure the speed of a car using a dashboard speedometer.  Neither of those two objective statements about reality imply any kind of preferred behaviour.

[WasatchMan]

It took me a few reads of this paragraph to understand why it is so hard to grok.  I have realised that the problem with your paragraph is that you have claimed that "ought" is about "behaviour".  In-fact, "ought" is about preferred behaviour.  So if you factor that into your example of the speeding car it becomes obvious that it doesn't make sense to claim there is a "preferred behaviour" needed to measure speed.  It is true that in order to measure the speed of a car there is necessary behaviour that a person must perform.  That's two uses of "is" though.  It is true that cars exist and can make relative movements.  It is true that a person can measure the speed of a car using a dashboard speedometer.  Neither of those two objective statements about reality imply any kind of preferred behaviour.

 

So if there is no preferred mode of behavior for determining the speed of a car (relative speed or otherwise) then reading tea leaves is just as good as a radar gun for determining this "is" (the speed of the car).

[ResidingOnEarth]

So if there is no preferred mode of behavior for determining the speed of a car (relative speed or otherwise) then reading tea leaves is just as good as a radar gun for determining this "is" (the speed of the car).

 

Reality does not allow for you to use tea leaves to measure the speed of a car.  Reality does allow you to use the speedo on your dashboard or your GPS-enabled mobile phone to determine the speed of a car.  This isn't about preferred behaviour (ought).

 

You could try and make a case that other people "ought" to use a specific method for determining the speed of a car.

[labmath2]

So if there is no preferred mode of behavior for determining the speed of a car (relative speed or otherwise) then reading tea leaves is just as good as a radar gun for determining this "is" (the speed of the car).

I think you are confusing intention and value (ought). It is in fact the case that I can choose to measure the speed of a car with tea leaves, but that has no impact on the nature of reality. In your earlier conditional statement, "if you want to measure the speed of a moving car, then you ought to use a speedometer," has to do with what we know about reality moreso than personal values. The ought speaks more to consistency and accuracy of results of the proposed method. I can say i want to measure the speed of moving cars and gather tea leaves, it would simply demostrate a different intention (i do not care if my measurements are consistently accurate) from that of someone who goes and grabs a speedometer.

[WasatchMan]

I will have have to hear it context, but i can already see the problem with the statement. Facts about reality are independent of personal values.

 

Facts about reality are independent from personal values, however this statement is pointing out that obtaining knowledge requires one to hold certain values, and not all values are equal in obtaining facts about reality.  That you cannot gain any facts about reality without holding certain value judgements about metaphysics and epistemology (see Western Civilization).

[Mister Mister]

I like Sam Harris for being a deep thinker and comes off as genuinely wanting to get to the truth of things, so I would recommend him.

 

However, I would say some FDR listeners probably don't like him because of his arguments around determinism.

and Statism.  He is an interesting and important and very original thinker IMO however.  Worth listening to, whether you agree or not, just based on the sheer force of his intellect and arguments.  There is SOME degree of intellectual integrity on the forums on his website as well, moreso than most places.

[labmath2]

Facts about reality are independent from personal values, however this statement is pointing out that obtaining knowledge requires one to hold certain values, and not all values are equal in obtaining facts about reality. That you cannot gain any facts about reality without holding certain value judgements about metaphysics and epistemology (see Western Civilization).

I do not disagree with these statements, but i think the initial statement falls short of communicating this.

 

Edit.

Your use of values here is more about the indvidual than the facts themselves. A person has to believe there is value in the knowledge he is pursuing to pursue it. However, he could accidentaly stumble on it. Holding certain values help, but upon further reflection, it is not necessary. Though the statement " not all values are equal in obtaining facts about reality" is true, one can still obtain facts about reality in the absence of those values (maybe a lot slower or less consistently).

[dsayers]

So you think that you can discover truths about the universe while rejecting the scientific method?

Truth is preferable to falsehood is axiomatic despite being stated as if it were subjective.

 

(In order to observe the speed of a car IS traveling you ought to have a device, or methodology, that measures the speed.  If you don't have some ought you are saying you can determine the speed by tea leaves?)

Tea leaves? So... don't challenge your position, lest ye dive into absurdity?

 

There is no ought in the measurement of the speed of a car. If you use a methodology that arrives at an incorrect answer, this has no bearing on the speed the car IS traveling at.

 

Ok you are not for language?

Show me, don't tell me.

 

In order to communicate you ought to adopt a language that can be used to communicate ideas between people, which includes "labels".

The label of "moral relativism," when undefined by the person introducing the label as a basis for comparison (you), is imprecise as it is meant to draw upon people's prior understanding instead of establishing a baseline (defining your terms). "label" being a subset of "language" doesn't mean it is precise. It is curious that somebody who would put forth the concept of "superior ideas" as valid (while undefined) would reject the same concept when it served to challenge him to refine the method by which he is trying to communicate.

[WasatchMan]

Truth is preferable to falsehood is axiomatic despite being stated as if it were subjective.

 

Doesn't answer the question I asked you...The whole point of this thread is that you cannot get to the truth without a proper methodology.  How are you disagreeing with this thesis? I don't understand your point.

 

 

Tea leaves? So... don't challenge your position, lest ye dive into absurdity?

 

ummm... no.... it is called giving two extremes of an example in order to highlight the position you are holding as opposed to a stark contrast.  My whole point of this thread is that you cannot get to truth without holding certain value positions on methodology for getting to truth and to highlight what I mean I was contrasting my position with one that is obviously the opposite and absurd...  But thanks for being an asshole about it.

 

Show me, don't tell me.

 

 

huh? This is a message board, showing is kinda hard... I can only tell things to my perspective...

 

 

The label of "moral relativism," when undefined by the person introducing the label as a basis for comparison (you), is imprecise as it is meant to draw upon people's prior understanding instead of establishing a baseline (defining your terms). "label" being a subset of "language" doesn't mean it is precise. It is curious that somebody who would put forth the concept of "superior ideas" as valid (while undefined) would reject the same concept when it served to challenge him to refine the method by which he is trying to communicate.

 

Ok... Moral relativism is a common term.  I see someone already defined it for you in this thread, now you know. So lets move on.

 

I find it interesting that you ignore this statement in your response (since it hits at the heart of the matter and you seem to be nit picking the edges and even defines what I mean be superior): "Superior because you can derive objective statements about the way things are (i.e. generate knowledge).  It is superior to know rain falls due to a scientific understanding of atmospheric conditions (which could be used to predict events) than to do a rain dance and think that is why it rains.  One is repeatable and talks about objective occurrences in reality - the other is just made up and provides zero knowledge on why it rains"

 

 

If you don't think a methodology that is used to find truth (i.e. the scientific method) vs. those that cannot be used to find truth (i.e. the dreaded tea leaves argument) is superior than I have no wish to discuss anything with you further.  I am having a hard time understanding your abrasive rejection to this thread.  All I am trying to point out is that some methodologies are required to find truths, others have no value in finding truth, this whole point can be summarized as "you cannot get to an is without an ought", and if accepted, proves that some methodologies, or oughts (the scientific method), are superior to other oughts (dun dun dunnnnnnn tea leaves).

[WasatchMan]

I do not disagree with these statements, but i think the initial statement falls short of communicating this.

 

Than you must have not read this part of the original statement "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is."

[WasatchMan]

and Statism.  He is an interesting and important and very original thinker IMO however.  Worth listening to, whether you agree or not, just based on the sheer force of his intellect and arguments.  There is SOME degree of intellectual integrity on the forums on his website as well, moreso than most places.

 

I agree with you on this.  I would take it one step further: Sam Harris is only interesting because intellectual discourse in our society is so generally uninteresting.

[Anuojat]

Wouldnt it be better to call it 

"You cannot get the KNOWLEDGE of what IS without a method that accurately descrives and arrives at reality. And you OUGHT to use SAID method over other methods IF you want to accurately know/descrive what IS."

 

 

What do you think of this?

 

I was frustrated because i could see you and Dsayers disagreeing for waht i though was merely miscummucation of langue rather than logic.

[ResidingOnEarth]

WasatchMan: I'm a little bit stuck on the recursive nature of your original statement ("you cannot get an Is without an ought").

 

If you cannot get an is without an ought, then how do you decide which out (IE the scientific method or the rain dance) is better?  Surely you will be deciding that based on an is (truth/observations of reality).  But once again... you cannot get an is from an ought so...

 

... and it goes on.

 

Another thing that has come to mind is this...

 

It's my understanding that the universe we live in is a consistent, shared reality.  It operates on fixed rules and is made up of waves and particles.  No matter whether I have correct or incorrect beliefs about the nature of the universe, the universe still is.  If I was one of the most intelligent people on the planet and my understanding of the scientific method and the various scientific disciplines was very good, I am still not granted the ability to create an is purely from my thoughts about it.  It's quite likely that I will be able to accurately describe the universe in many instances, but none of those accurate descriptions produce an is.  On the occasion where I fail to accurately describe the universe, the universe does not change and bend to fit my description. 

 

Do you see my point?

 

Forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious.  I'm finding this topic testing!

 

 

I agree with you on this.  I would take it one step further: Sam Harris is only interesting because intellectual discourse in our society is so generally uninteresting.

 

^ I like that

[labmath2]

Than you must have not read this part of the original statement "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is."

This is incorrect. People discovered facts about the world well before the scientific method or accepting law of idetity. This is not communicating the same thing.

[rosencrantz]

All "ought" statements are IF/THEN statements. 

 

 

You got it exactly wrong. There are apodictic statements "You shall not steal" and casuistic "If you buy something, you have to pay for it". Only the latter are if / then statements.

[Donnadogsoth]

You got it exactly wrong. There are apodictic statements "You shall not steal" and casuistic "If you buy something, you have to pay for it". Only the latter are if / then statements.

 

"You shall not steal" is not necessary or logically certain.  It is a statement premised on stealing=punishment.  If there were no punishment for stealing, even if that punishment is merely the incurred displeasure of the victim, why not steal?

[ResidingOnEarth]

"You shall not steal" is not necessary or logically certain. 

 

What does that mean?

 

It is a statement premised on stealing=punishment. 

 

No it's not.

 

1. "=" refers to equality.  They are not equal.

2. Assuming you are actually trying to say that punishment results from stealing then that sentence is still false.  Stealing does not always result in punishment.

 

If there were no punishment for stealing, even if that punishment is merely the incurred displeasure of the victim, why not steal?

 

Is that a serious question?  Are you suggesting that if there was no punishment for stealing where you live then you would go-ahead and steal?  If not why not?  If you have an answer to that second question, then you've answered your own original question that I quoted above.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

"You shall not steal" is not necessary or logically certain. 

 

What does that mean?

 

It is a statement premised on stealing=punishment. 

 

No it's not.

 

1. "=" refers to equality.  They are not equal.

2. Assuming you are actually trying to say that punishment results from stealing then that sentence is still false.  Stealing does not always result in punishment.

 

If there were no punishment for stealing, even if that punishment is merely the incurred displeasure of the victim, why not steal?

 

Is that a serious question?  Are you suggesting that if there was no punishment for stealing where you live then you would go-ahead and steal?  If not why not?  If you have an answer to that second question, then you've answered your own original question that I quoted above.

 

 

If no one minded when you stole, why not steal?

[ResidingOnEarth]

If no one minded when you stole, why not steal?

 

You didn't answer my questions, so I'm not sure why I should answer yours.

 

Also: are you trying to make a point with that question?  If not, then it's a truly pointless question.  I'm not aware of a single society/tribe on this planet where people don't care whenever their property is stolen from them.  I don't expect such a society/tribe of people with that attitude will ever exist.  Why waste brain cycles considering scenarios like that which are nothing to do with humans, earth or this universe that we live in?

 

Something valuable I have learnt from Stef is that it is wise to use philosophy to solve real and practical problems.  It's very easy to fall into the trap of considering and trying to solve hypothetical scenarios which have no baring on reality.

[neeeel]

If no one minded when you stole, why not steal?

 

 

Then its not stealing, by definition

[Donnadogsoth]

You didn't answer my questions, so I'm not sure why I should answer yours.

 

Also: are you trying to make a point with that question?  If not, then it's a truly pointless question.  I'm not aware of a single society/tribe on this planet where people don't care whenever their property is stolen from them.  I don't expect such a society/tribe of people with that attitude will ever exist.  Why waste brain cycles considering scenarios like that which are nothing to do with humans, earth or this universe that we live in?

 

Something valuable I have learnt from Stef is that it is wise to use philosophy to solve real and practical problems.  It's very easy to fall into the trap of considering and trying to solve hypothetical scenarios which have no baring on reality.

 

You didn't bother to understand what I wrote, so why not answer your questions with a more pertinent one?

 

The point is, the badness of theft is that someone cares about losing things, and so there is a punishment, even if that punishment is the implicit awareness of the disgruntlement of the victim.  All moral statements are IF/THEN, IF we want to avoid the deserved punishment for theft, including an awareness that we have wronged another, THEN we should not steal.  Without that foundation there is no meaning to theft.

[ResidingOnEarth]

Then its not stealing, by definition

 

I thought that at first but realised that someone can steal something from you and you not mind.  Think paper-clip!

* I own some paper clips.

* they are rightfully my property that I paid for.

* someone steals a paper-clip from me.

* It's worth less than a penny.  I don't mind!

 

It's still theft though as they took my property without permission.

[Donnadogsoth]

I thought that at first but realised that someone can steal something from you and you not mind.  Think paper-clip!

* I own some paper clips.

* they are rightfully my property that I paid for.

* someone steals a paper-clip from me.

* It's worth less than a penny.  I don't mind!

 

It's still theft though as they took my property without permission.

 

Or stealing a kiss.