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

[ResidingOnEarth]

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

 

As I pointed out: at least some of what you wrote was incorrect.  I took the time (and bother) to parse your words and noticed the issue.  I asked what one of your sentences meant because it does not make any sense to me.

 

Also: your "more pertinent" question as I pointed out is not pertinent at all and is not even applicable to this reality that we live in.

 

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.

 

If you are talking about the punishment of negative feelings brought upon by empathy; it would be important for you to acknowledge that a small percentage of people severely lack empathy so would not experience this "punishment" having stolen from someone.  If you are suggesting that theft is only bad if the thief feels empathy then that means that it's not bad for psychopaths to steal.

 

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.

 

UPB does not rely on punishment in order to establish a moral principle.

 

Also: you've dropped the word "deserved" in there.  How are you establishing that someone deserves punishment for theft.  Obviously you can't refer to your own argument (quoted above) to establish that, as that would be the logical fallacy of: circular reasoning

[Donnadogsoth]

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.

If you are talking about the punishment of negative feelings brought upon by empathy; it would be important for you to acknowledge that a small percentage of people severely lack empathy so would not experience this "punishment" having stolen from someone.  If you are suggesting that theft is only bad if the thief feels empathy then that means that it's not bad for psychopaths to steal.

 

The reason theft is wrong is because of the injury to the losing party who is somebody of merit. If there were no injury, or if the injury were to someone of no merit, there could be no theft. We should feel this as punishment, feel our outrage against a meritous person, even if we don't. That we might not feel it makes no difference. The existence of the problem the theft has created makes it wrong.

 

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.

UPB does not rely on punishment in order to establish a moral principle.

 

Also: you've dropped the word "deserved" in there.  How are you establishing that someone deserves punishment for theft.  Obviously you can't refer to your own argument (quoted above) to establish that, as that would be the logical fallacy of: circular reasoning

 

A thief deserves punishment if he willingly committed theft. We are punishing the intention-cum-action. If he goes around intending to steal but never steals we can't touch him. Is that circular?

 

PS. When you reply please do not reply quote by quote breaking up the letter.  I don't know how to respond that way, so I just boldface your relevant text.

[neeeel]

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.

 

 

I dont think so. If you dont mind, then by definition, its not stealing. if you do mind, then its stealing. You might not pursue them to get restitution, but you still mind. If you do pursue them for restitution, then you do mind that they took them.

 

If you dont care that they took your paper clips, then I dont see how it can be stealing.

[ResidingOnEarth]

I dont think so. If you dont mind, then by definition, its not stealing. if you do mind, then its stealing. You might not pursue them to get restitution, but you still mind. If you do pursue them for restitution, then you do mind that they took them.

 

If you dont care that they took your paper clips, then I dont see how it can be stealing.

 

I think you've largely just repeated yourself without making a case for why someone minding or not minding should affect whether an action is considered theft or not.

 

I think laying out some definitions will clear this up:

 

"Steal": To take the property of another without their permission.

 

"Don't mind": If a person "doesn't mind" that an event has occurred it means they are not emotionally upset by the event and they are largely indifferent to its occurrence.  They don't have any particular preference for whether the event occurred or did not occur.

 

If someone takes 1 of my paper clips without my permission then it is theft.  If I am indifferent to the act of them taking my paper clip (IE I don't mind that they took it), the following still holds as true:

1. It is still my paper-clip.

2. The other person took my paper-clip without my permission.

[Donnadogsoth]

I think you've largely just repeated yourself without making a case for why someone minding or not minding should affect whether an action is considered theft or not.

 

I think laying out some definitions will clear this up:

 

"Steal": To take the property of another without their permission.

 

"Don't mind": If a person "doesn't mind" that an event has occurred it means they are not emotionally upset by the event and they are largely indifferent to its occurrence.  They don't have any particular preference for whether the event occurred or did not occur.

 

If someone takes 1 of my paper clips without my permission then it is theft.  If I am indifferent to the act of them taking my paper clip (IE I don't mind that they took it), the following still holds as true:

1. It is still my paper-clip.

2. The other person took my paper-clip without my permission.

 

I think neeeel is talking about implied consent.  I may not have permission to kiss my girlfriend (i.e., "steal a kiss"), but I'll do it anyway on the presumption that she won't mind.

[ResidingOnEarth]

I think neeeel is talking about implied consent.  I may not have permission to kiss my girlfriend (i.e., "steal a kiss"), but I'll do it anyway on the presumption that she won't mind.

 

Implied consent is consent.  If the person taking the paper-clip had implied consent then they would have my permission and it wouldn't be stealing.

 

Introducing the concept of implied consent doesn't change my argument in the post above, at all.  It is easy for me to imagine a scenario where someone takes a paper-clip of mine and they do not have implied consent.

[Donnadogsoth]

Implied consent is consent.  If the person taking the paper-clip had implied consent then they would have my permission and it wouldn't be stealing.

 

Introducing the concept of implied consent doesn't change my argument in the post above, at all.  It is easy for me to imagine a scenario where someone takes a paper-clip of mine and they do not have implied consent.

 

Agreed.

[dsayers]

The difference between stealing and not is consent. Consent cannot be implied, and must be secured in advance. "not minding" is a consideration that comes AFTER the behavior in question, and therefore not the same thing as consent. In the scenario of a paper clip, not minding is the acknowledgement that damages are such that the pursuit of restitution would not be a desirable use of one's time.

 

There is such a thing as a reasonable expectation of consent. Say you find somebody passed out in the middle of the road. It is reasonable to expect that if they could give consent, they would. As such, you could take command of their body by picking them up and getting them out of harm's way. Even if it was a failed suicide attempt, since motorists didn't consent to the horror of almost killing somebody and/or the damage to their car.

 

Does that help at all?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Sorry to jump in here without reading much, but wouldn't the only way to suggest that an "is" does not imply an "ought" is to deny objectively observable preference communicated by human action? If some guy is in a conversation with me about morality, I will not take it for granted that he has no value or preference, that would assume he does not exist at all. The very fact that people engage in certain behaviors does imply that they have goals and preferences, if these goals and preferences are completely arbitrary and random then we can discard them since we are talking to a crazy person by definition, but if they are not arbitrary and random then we can use causal reasoning to see how their preferences imply they look at data. Everything at a fundamental level reduces to sense data, and then we create abstract goals by which we manipulate the data. The only "is" is the fundamental sense data, and then everything we do to manipulate the sense data would by definition imply an ought, an objectively verifiable set of preferences. For instance, I get aroused looking at hot women when they're naked (most of the time), this is implies that I have an ought which is genetic preference, and whether I will pursue the hot naked women and how I pursue them will also imply other oughts that are implicit in my actions.

 

This is a new thought for me, so you beautiful donors please let me know if I make making any errors.

[Donnadogsoth]

Sorry to jump in here without reading much, but wouldn't the only way to suggest that an "is" does not imply an "ought" is to deny objectively observable preference communicated by human action? If some guy is in a conversation with me about morality, I will not take it for granted that he has no value or preference, that would assume he does not exist at all. The very fact that people engage in certain behaviors does imply that they have goals and preferences, if these goals and preferences are completely arbitrary and random then we can discard them since we are talking to a crazy person by definition, but if they are not arbitrary and random then we can use causal reasoning to see how their preferences imply they look at data. Everything at a fundamental level reduces to sense data, and then we create abstract goals by which we manipulate the data. The only "is" is the fundamental sense data, and then everything we do to manipulate the sense data would by definition imply an ought, an objectively verifiable set of preferences. For instance, I get aroused looking at hot women when they're naked (most of the time), this is implies that I have an ought which is genetic preference, and whether I will pursue the hot naked women and how I pursue them will also imply other oughts that are implicit in my actions.

 

This is a new thought for me, so you beautiful donors please let me know if I make making any errors.

 

I'm not sure I understand.  Your genetics is another "is" which gives rise to the "is" of your libido.  "Ought" implies a judgement.  An ought would be an IF/THEN statement.  IF you wish to have children THEN you should pursue (hot (and reliable)) women.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I don't understand the "should" in your statement. It doesn't add anything. The whole statement is an is. If you wish to have children, it is necessary you pursue a woman (whether this is actually true or not let's just forget about). What the heck is the purpose of a should or ought except to wrap something objective in subjective language. A should or shouldn't is the opinion part, it relies on the subjective value that is chosen. If some one walks up to me and discusses morality with me, then automatically if they are considered sane, it implies there are objective components to what is being talked about, it also implies that the person values a peaceful exchange with me rather than forcing their opinion on me with a gun, it also implies they'd rather speak with me than spend that time donating to the 3rd world (fuck you Peter Singer you hypocrite). So I don't even think oughts exist. Is that crazy of me?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't understand the "should" in your statement. It doesn't add anything. The whole statement is an is. If you wish to have children, it is necessary you pursue a woman (whether this is actually true or not let's just forget about). What the heck is the purpose of a should or ought except to wrap something objective in subjective language. A should or shouldn't is the opinion part, it relies on the subjective value that is chosen. If some one walks up to me and discusses morality with me, then automatically if they are considered sane, it implies there are objective components to what is being talked about, it also implies that the person values a peaceful exchange with me rather than forcing their opinion on me with a gun, it also implies they'd rather speak with me than spend that time donating to the 3rd world (fuck you Peter Singer you hypocrite). So I don't even think oughts exist. Is that crazy of me?

 

You can rephrase "ought" to be another "is" if you wish.  The intent in both cases is clear.  If you want X you need Y.  "Should" or "ought" may seem old-fashioned, but the intent is the same.  "Ought" is doing justice to the original "is".  If you want children you ought to get married.  if you want children you need to get married.  Both are statements of fact.

[labmath2]

Ought the way its used is a generalization of the if then statement. Basically, it removes context. I can say you ought not murder (or paraphrased, if you do not want to be immoral, do not murder). The ought form assumes the goal.

[dsayers]

Ought the way its used is a generalization of the if then statement. Basically, it removes context. I can say you ought not murder (or paraphrased, if you do not want to be immoral, do not murder). The ought form assumes the goal.

I agree with this. You cannot get an ought from an is... without an if.

[WasatchMan]

I agree with this. You cannot get an ought from an is... without an if.

 

To be clear, there is nothing in what I was trying to communicate that would go against this statement.  "Without an if" is awesome way to put it.

 

You can't get an "is" without an "ought" is a epistemological statement, not a metaphysical one.  What "is" is, no matter if there were no one around to interpret it. But in order to make a statement about what something is, you need a methodology (the "ought").

[Matthew Ed Moran]

You can't get an "is" without an "ought" is a epistemological statement, not a metaphysical one.  What "is" is, no matter if there were no one around to interpret it. But in order to make a statement about what something is, you need a methodology (the "ought").

 

I really like how you summarized that. Good stuff, guys. Also, you can deduce an opinion from a fact, the opinion is that we should be empirical, consistent, rational, and this is contained in the premise of what it means to state a fact. So we can get an ought from an is. The ought doesn't exist "out there" but it is a logical deduction from what it means to accurately state about the "out there" from the standpoint of human consciousness. A fact ought to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and if it's not then it doesn't fit the category of a fact. Then it is an ought without an is, which is the ultimate no-no. At least I think so..... I still have a bit of learning to do

[neeeel]

I really like how you summarized that. Good stuff, guys. Also, you can deduce an opinion from a fact, the opinion is that we should be empirical, consistent, rational, and this is contained in the premise of what it means to state a fact. So we can get an ought from an is. The ought doesn't exist "out there" but it is a logical deduction from what it means to accurately state about the "out there" from the standpoint of human consciousness. A fact ought to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and if it's not then it doesn't fit the category of a fact. Then it is an ought without an is, which is the ultimate no-no. At least I think so..... I still have a bit of learning to do

 

 

this is incorrect. A fact tells you nothing, in and of itself, about what you should, or ought, to do. A fact, in and of itself, also doesnt tell you that you should be empirical, consistent and rational. 

As has been stated by others, you need an "If" in order to get to an ought. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Neeel,

 

I think I get what you mean, I was trying to apply WasatchMan's point about how to make a statement about an is, you need an ought, which is epistemology. For instance, the ought you expressed in your point is that you ought to be considered correct, and to consider you correct we need some methodology. So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?

[neeeel]

Neeel,

 

I think I get what you mean, I was trying to apply WasatchMan's point about how to make a statement about an is, you need an ought, which is epistemology. For instance, the ought you expressed in your point is that you ought to be considered correct, and to consider you correct we need some methodology. So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?

 

 

I dont think I expressed an ought in my point. I suppose you could say that , by the very expression of my point, I am expecting to be considered correct, I dont know. 

 

If you say "it is raining", that fact doesnt tell you anything about what you ought to do. 

so to put it into logical form

 

P) it is raining

c) I should take an umbrella.

 

The conclusion C) doesnt follow from the premise P). You cant draw any logical conclusion from that premise alone.

 

but if you have

 

P1) it is raining

P2) if it is raining, and I want to stay dry, then I should take an umbrella

P3) I want to stay dry

C) I should take an umbrella

 

adding in the extra premises allows you to derive an "ought", conclusion C)

 

 

Perhaps you are talking about something different. For example, making a statement about an "is". This would be different from deriving an ought from an is, or an is from an ought.

 

So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?

 

 

perhaps it tells you something about what you should or shouldnt do , but it doesnt tell me ( the person making the statement) anything about what I should or shouldnt do. I think thats the point.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"I dont think I expressed an ought in my point. I suppose you could say that , by the very expression of my point, I am expecting to be considered correct, I dont know."

 

Well yea aren't you correcting me? You said I was incorrect. If you don't even expect to be correct when you say something to me, then please spare me, I care not what you say further. I don't mean to be petty but if you don't expect to be correct, I don't see what I can gain from a discussion

[dsayers]

You can't get an "is" without an "ought" is a epistemological statement, not a metaphysical one.  What "is" is, no matter if there were no one around to interpret it. But in order to make a statement about what something is, you need a methodology (the "ought").

Hmmm... I think the challenge still lies in the fact that a bad methodology or problematic interpretation has no bearing on what actually IS. If this is true, then you can in fact have an is without an ought.

 

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Matter represents the IS while consciousness is a requisite for determining an ought. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you MUST be able to have an is without an ought, since matter precedes consciousness. Does that make sense?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

But dsayers, what IS depends on epistemology. It is kind of like treating any statement as both a premise and a conclusion. There is a premise for why they are saying it, and then there is a conclusion which is either true or false based on obeservable reality. And also, physical reality is not the only thing that IS. there are concepts, too, and some things are true based on their relationship to other concepts.

 

Let me know if that makes sense to you

[WasatchMan]

Hmmm... I think the challenge still lies in the fact that a bad methodology or problematic interpretation has no bearing on what actually IS. If this is true, then you can in fact have an is without an ought.

 

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Matter represents the IS while consciousness is a requisite for determining an ought. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you MUST be able to have an is without an ought, since matter precedes consciousness. Does that make sense?

 

Epistemology is an emergent property of consciousness.  I am making a statement about the nature epistemology.  Methodologies can obviously be wrong, but you cannot get to anything right without a proper one.

 

"Is"s exist independent of consciousness, sure.  Not debating that point in the slightest. The point I am making is that YOU as a conscious being cannot make any statement about the nature of reality ("is"'s) without an methodology (or "ought").  Please try.  One example would prove me wrong immediately.

I really like how you summarized that. Good stuff, guys. Also, you can deduce an opinion from a fact, the opinion is that we should be empirical, consistent, rational, and this is contained in the premise of what it means to state a fact. So we can get an ought from an is. The ought doesn't exist "out there" but it is a logical deduction from what it means to accurately state about the "out there" from the standpoint of human consciousness. A fact ought to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and if it's not then it doesn't fit the category of a fact. Then it is an ought without an is, which is the ultimate no-no. At least I think so..... I still have a bit of learning to do

 

You cannot get an "ought" from an "is" but if you prefer to get an "is" you "ought" to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and in general, fall under the principles of the scientific method

[Matthew Ed Moran]

gonna rewrite this tomorrow

[neeeel]

"I dont think I expressed an ought in my point. I suppose you could say that , by the very expression of my point, I am expecting to be considered correct, I dont know."

 

Well yea aren't you correcting me? You said I was incorrect. If you don't even expect to be correct when you say something to me, then please spare me, I care not what you say further. I don't mean to be petty but if you don't expect to be correct, I don't see what I can gain from a discussion

 

All I am saying is, I cant logically deduce anything from a simple statement of fact alone. There is no conclusion I can logically deduce that follows from a simple statement of fact. As in my "it is raining" example.

me saying "you are incorrect" does not allow you to deduce anything from that statement alone. You need to add in other premises in order to deduce anything. For example "neeeel cares about being correct".  

How you decide if something is true or not, is a whole different thing. What you deduce about why I said something, is not deduced from my statement about the rain. Its deduced from a whole load of other premises that you are adding in.

 

 Any time we make a choice to do something we are saying, "I think I ought to do this, because I want to achieve something by it"

 

 

yes, you have added in "because I want to achieve something by it". when we make a choice to do something, it is not based on a single fact (eg , "it is raining")

 

 

There is a premise for why they are saying it

 

 

yes, and this is totally separate from the statement of fact, and an extra premise you are adding in.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Alright, hear me out if you'll be kind enough. I think I can logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is'

 

First I'll give some framing for it.

 

Any "is" is either a definition, or it is an instance and a definition. There is no such thing which is an instance, which is not a definition. A definition is simply something which is self consistent. A true definition is something which is internally and externally consistent, and it also ought to be consistent among other true definitions. 

 

When I say I can derive an 'is' from an 'ought,' I am referring to the fact that all is statements are definitions, and all definitions ought to be consistent with themselves and with other definitions. 

 

If I am correct, I think you might agree with what I am beginning to realize, which is that 'is' and 'ought' mean the same thing, but they are used semantically to refer to the "is" relationship between the nature of consciousness, and reality. There can be no such this which is, which is not consistent. If something is not consistent, it isn't. We label these contradictions, sure. So they are not valid. But they also are not true, since anything which isn't valid ought not be true.

 

I think the proper way to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is to say that anything which "is," ought to be verifiable. It ought to be verified as self consistent. And it ought to be verified empirically. And it ought to be consistent with other instances which are verified empirically. If you deny this, then you are deny what it means for something to exist, either as a concept or an instance. For something to be an "is," it ought to fit at least some of these standards. 

 

Try denying that any "is" ought to be self consistent. You will immediately fall into contradiction.

 

Let me know if I have solved this problem and can go collect my prize from Hume's grave, or if I am being batshit arrogant about my argument let me know. Either way I'd appreciate a fact check, since I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I will hand out upvotes to those who do reply

[neeeel]

Alright, hear me out if you'll be kind enough. I think I can logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is'

 

First I'll give some framing for it.

 

Any "is" is either a definition, or it is an instance and a definition. There is no such thing which is an instance, which is not a definition. A definition is simply something which is self consistent. A true definition is something which is internally and externally consistent, and it also ought to be consistent among other true definitions. 

 

When I say I can derive an 'is' from an 'ought,' I am referring to the fact that all is statements are definitions, and all definitions ought to be consistent with themselves and with other definitions. 

 

If I am correct, I think you might agree with what I am beginning to realize, which is that 'is' and 'ought' mean the same thing, but they are used semantically to refer to the "is" relationship between the nature of consciousness, and reality. There can be no such this which is, which is not consistent. If something is not consistent, it isn't. We label these contradictions, sure. So they are not valid. But they also are not true, since anything which isn't valid ought not be true.

 

I think the proper way to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is to say that anything which "is," ought to be verifiable. It ought to be verified as self consistent. And it ought to be verified empirically. And it ought to be consistent with other instances which are verified empirically. If you deny this, then you are deny what it means for something to exist, either as a concept or an instance. For something to be an "is," it ought to fit at least some of these standards. 

 

Try denying that any "is" ought to be self consistent. You will immediately fall into contradiction.

 

Let me know if I have solved this problem and can go collect my prize from Hume's grave, or if I am being batshit arrogant about my argument let me know. Either way I'd appreciate a fact check, since I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I will hand out upvotes to those who do reply

 

 

I dont understand how this is to do with what I am saying, so I am not sure how to respond. Did you read my example with "it is raining"?

 

Edit to say : you arent logically deriving an ought from an is. You are logically deriving an ought, from an is PLUS A huge pile of other premises

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I was not responding directly to you, Neeel, but yes I read your post. 

 

"It is raining"

 

Therefore it ought to be verifiable. This is logically derived from the definition of "is": an instance and a concept, or a concept. All ought to be verifiable or they don't exist.

 

I get there are a bunch of other premises, but they are all "is" statements, too. 

 

I don't see what is so special about "oughts." "Oughts" seem just to be ways we express that the things "out there" should be consistent with our definitions. Contradictions don't exist, so if I say "you ought to eat cereal because cereal is made of wheat," that is perfectly consistent with itself, the "ought" just applies only to the person saying it, since it is not put forward as a universal. Our concepts are the only things "oughts" apply to, some concepts exist only as definitions; but there are no "is" which are not also "oughts," or else we would not be able to communicate them, so we can definitely say things ought to be verifiable.It seems logical to me, but I'm open to the fact that I'm missing something.

[neeeel]

I think I am just repeating myself over and over in each post, so either I am not explaining it well, or you are not getting what I am saying. So I will bow out for now.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Okay, it's possible I have a blind spot, so I will see if others have anything to say and I'm going to continue reading about the topic.

 

One thing I'd be interested in from others are definitions of ought and is. I am particularly confused on what an ought is. The best definition I can come up with is 'an opinion about reality.' And so when I say something "is" it seems logical to me that this implies our opinion should also be that it is. 

[labmath2]

Alright, hear me out if you'll be kind enough. I think I can logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is'

 

First I'll give some framing for it.

 

Any "is" is either a definition, or it is an instance and a definition. There is no such thing which is an instance, which is not a definition. A definition is simply something which is self consistent. A true definition is something which is internally and externally consistent, and it also ought to be consistent among other true definitions. 

 

When I say I can derive an 'is' from an 'ought,' I am referring to the fact that all is statements are definitions, and all definitions ought to be consistent with themselves and with other definitions. 

 

If I am correct, I think you might agree with what I am beginning to realize, which is that 'is' and 'ought' mean the same thing, but they are used semantically to refer to the "is" relationship between the nature of consciousness, and reality. There can be no such this which is, which is not consistent. If something is not consistent, it isn't. We label these contradictions, sure. So they are not valid. But they also are not true, since anything which isn't valid ought not be true.

 

I think the proper way to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is to say that anything which "is," ought to be verifiable. It ought to be verified as self consistent. And it ought to be verified empirically. And it ought to be consistent with other instances which are verified empirically. If you deny this, then you are deny what it means for something to exist, either as a concept or an instance. For something to be an "is," it ought to fit at least some of these standards. 

 

Try denying that any "is" ought to be self consistent. You will immediately fall into contradiction.

 

Let me know if I have solved this problem and can go collect my prize from Hume's grave, or if I am being batshit arrogant about my argument let me know. Either way I'd appreciate a fact check, since I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I will hand out upvotes to those who do reply

 

I am not sure what your argument is, but i will respond to what i think it is. I think you are using "is' and "ought" in non conventional ways.

 

"The is-ought problem, as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76), states that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law, orHume's guillotine." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

 

The statements i highlighted in red reminds me of the question "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The trick there is that its hard to tell if the question is observer dependent or independent. Facts about the world exist independent of an observer. Those facts do not conform to those statements. Even if everyone still believed the earth revolved around the earth, it would have no bearing of what actually is. Some facts are observer dependent, ;like color or sound. The thing that produces the effect of color and sound is itself observer independent, but our interpretation (and communication) of those phenomenon are observer dependent. So that certain objects reflect a specific wavelength of light is observer independent, but that that object is red is observer dependent. 

 

I went to the trouble of typing all that just to say, your believes about how the truth works has no bearing on the truth except in those cases where the truth is affected by observing it. So no, anything which is does not have to be empirically verifiable and does not have to be consistent with other instances which are empirically verifiable ." The best example i can think of is the fact that radio waves existed for thousands of years before humans knew it existed. However, it would be best to have empirical evidence when communicating this truth to others (though have succeeded in communicating falsehoods as truths for thousands of years, so what  i know).

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think I made an error. If I say something exists, then I say it is also verifiable. That's an is from an is; not an ought like I had originally said. An ought only appears in a conditional, where the subject of the "is" statement is valid or not on whether the condition is accomplished. If it is not accomplished, then the conclusion still may follow by chance (highly unlikely), but it will not necessarily follow for any specific reason. 

 

The angle I was trying to push in on the conversation is how pointless it even is to point out that you can't get an ought from an is if you're not given any other premises. That is like saying you can turn a turkey into an astronaut by magic. I get annoyed that people think this has anything to do with morality. As soon as you begin speaking about morality, you're speaking about what people should do. There are valid ways we can reason towards this conclusion that are consistent empirically, but if people think there is no such thing as morality, meaning there is no such thing as what people should do, then they are being very manipulative, whether it's to their own fault or not. You can't tell or even suggest people should do something if there is no such thing as a good reason why we should do anything. 

 

I laughed at what you said about Sam Harris earlier in the thread WasatchMan, about how Sam Harris is only good because other intellectuals suck. I don't even watch Sam anymore to be honest Am I missing out on anything besides this?

 

 

The point I am making is that YOU as a conscious being cannot make any statement about the nature of reality ("is"'s) without an methodology (or "ought").  Please try.  One example would prove me wrong immediately.

 

 +1 

[Max Hartford]

Perhaps we need a value system in order to discover truths, but once they have been discovered, we do not need to continue adhering to the same value system in order to use these discovered truths to improve our lives. We can switch our value systems based on which is most useful to us at the moment. Hence, it seems moral relativism lives. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

To discover truth you need to hold truth as a value. Moral relativism is invalid. It's like saying math is dependent on cultural upbringing. No, math is universally valid. "Moral relativism lives" is not an argument. It's equivalent to saying "invalid math lives"

 

If all you're trying to say is "we don't need to be consistent when we don't want to" then you're probably speaking out of childhood trauma when you feel the need to keep pointing this out when no one said otherwise...

 

You're saying "I don't need to be moral to you guys, I'm only doing it because it benefits me at this moment" It sounds like a parental alter ego who would be a serious narcissist, sadist, and abuser who used their capacity to be immoral to others as a threat.

[Nathan Metric]

The Hume naturalistic fallacy is an actual type of fallacy. The problem is what the nihilists/relativists try to deduce from this fact. Yes, it is a fallacy to derive an ought from an is, but  concluding from this that objective morality is nonsense is an absurdity. 

 

The Is

You can't get an ought from an Is

The Ought

Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called "objective morality"

 

 

THAT in an of itself is a naturalistic fallacy.

Perhaps we need a value system in order to discover truths, but once they have been discovered, we do not need to continue adhering to the same value system in order to use these discovered truths to improve our lives. We can switch our value systems based on which is most useful to us at the moment. Hence, it seems moral relativism lives. 

 

Hi Mr Hartfod. I see you are still trying to correct people as though they ought to be correct.