Can you break Hume's law with an "if-then" statement?

[Shaeroden]

so i understand Hume's law states that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

but when i throw an "if" at the beginning of a sentence, well... things like this can happen:

if you want to have a working car, you ought to change the oil.

the "is" is implied because it *is* true that failing to change the oil will cause your engine to weld itself in to a useless steel paperweight, which happened to my Mitsubishi last month.

so it *is* true that failing to change the oil regularly will ruin the engine.
and *if* your objective is to have a working engine,
then you *ought* to change the oil.
and a failure to change the oil would indicate that the if-condition was not met.

we can even put this in terms of UPB.

it *is* true that theft is not UPB.
and *if* your objective is to be moral...
then you *ought* not to steal
and a failure to refrain from stealing indicates the if-condition was not met.

is this a logically sound method for getting around Hume's law?

has someone already figured this out and i'm just late to the show?

[dsayers]

It is true that you cannot derive an ought from an is without an if.

 

You have to be careful when trying to apply this to morality. In any moral analysis, internal consistency is a given. It is the implied if. So you can't say "you ought to steal" because the proposition of theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Whereas "you ought to change the oil in your car" isn't internally inconsistent.

 

Does that help?

[Shaeroden]

Whereas "you ought to change the oil in your car" isn't internally inconsistent.

 

It is true that you cannot derive an ought from an is without an if.

 

You have to be careful when trying to apply this to morality. In any moral analysis, internal consistency is a given. It is the implied if. So you can't say "you ought to steal" because the proposition of theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Whereas "you ought to change the oil in your car" isn't internally inconsistent.

 

Does that help?

 

so the "if" when talking about morality is perpetually implied?

[Max Hartford]

I think you're right in your analysis, Shaeroden, but my question is: why would anyone's objective be to be moral? I mean, maybe people might want to be nice to people that they like, or to people in general, but to be 'moral'? Seems like a strange objective to hold, especially since it doesn't seem to lead anything that's beneficial in a more primal way.

[Lykourgos]

What's the difference between "should" and "ought" here?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think you're right in your analysis, Shaeroden, but my question is: why would anyone's objective be to be moral? I mean, maybe people might want to be nice to people that they like, or to people in general, but to be 'moral'? Seems like a strange objective to hold, especially since it doesn't seem to lead anything that's beneficial in a more primal way.

 

Because society needs it. And because you can be sure you won't be corrupted. I think a huge motivation to be moral is also not to have disasters of conscience. People who are limited from acknowledging moral truths about their own life lack free will in a certain fundamental sense. It would be like disbelieving in science, as impossibly as that would be with all the effects of science right in front of you. So how can you deny all the immorality right in front of you if it is in fact a true thing? It would be just as chaotic of a life. I don't want that, personally, so that is why I try to be moral.

 

Also, it is defense from evil. If you are not able to acknowledge moral truths, then you will effectively force yourself not to be able to recognize true acts of evil, since you will be treating them all the same.

 

And lastly, there is the classical argument that being moral increases your chances of being happy, and gives you the best shot at attaining the greatest type of happiness as could be imagined.

 

Edit: Let's move this to the new thread you created  

 

For others: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46328-why-be-moral/#entry424179

[dsayers]

Seems like a strange objective to hold, especially since it doesn't seem to lead anything that's beneficial in a more primal way.

I don't think continuing to move forward while walking forward is a "strange objective." I think the problem with trying to move backwards while walking forward is self-evident.

[Max Hartford]

Because society needs it. And because you can be sure you won't be corrupted. I think a huge motivation to be moral is also not to have disasters of conscience. People who are limited from acknowledging moral truths about their own life lack free will in a certain fundamental sense. It would be like disbelieving in science, as impossibly as that would be with all the effects of science right in front of you. So how can you deny all the immorality right in front of you if it is in fact a true thing? It would be just as chaotic of a life. I don't want that, personally, so that is why I try to be moral.

 

Also, it is defense from evil. If you are not able to acknowledge moral truths, then you will effectively force yourself not to be able to recognize true acts of evil, since you will be treating them all the same.

 

And lastly, there is the classical argument that being moral increases your chances of being happy, and gives you the best shot at attaining the greatest type of happiness as could be imagined.

 

Some points in response:

 

1. What is beneficial for 'society' (however one defines it) may not always line up with what is beneficial for the individual decision-maker. There's no good reason why individuals should sacrifice themselves in any way in order to benefit 'society'.

 

2. Not sure what exactly you mean by 'corrupted'.

 

3. Conscience is an internal enforcer of morality. If we do not care about morality, we will not have a conscience, and hence can't have 'disasters' of it.

 

4. I don't think the analogy between morality and science holds here. Science helps us to understand how the world works, whereas morality is just a set of criteria for  judging other people's actions. Morality doesn't actually lead us to an understanding of what motivated those actions. For that, we turn to psychology, which is a science.

 

5. If we don't care about morality, we don't want to defend ourselves from 'evil in general', but rather from things that are harmful to us personally. The amoral person should be capable of recognizing what is harmful to them equally, if not better than, the moral person. 

 

6. Since morality was not formulated with the maximization of individual happiness in mind, but rather based on logical reasoning, it would be a strange and unlikely coincidence if following it led to this outcome. Also, different things make different people happily, so it is highly unlikely that following a universal set of rules would lead to the happiness of every unique, individualized person.

[Worlok]

Is and ought are generally subjective. The "law" is like saying "because purple unicorns." Hume's law isn't a law, but a logical inconsistency. Unless I'm missing the point here...

[Nathan Metric]

I have two thoughts on this.

 

1)The Hume fallacy is an actual type of fallacy. A form of argumentation that can be used to prove anything cannot possibly be a valid argument form. It doesn't matter though. You can still derive an objective morality even despite the fact that you can't get an ought from an is. 

 

2)You bypass (not break) the Hume fallacy by deriving oughts from other oughts rather than from claims about reality. 

 

Example:

Thou should pursue virtue (Axiomatic Ought)

Truth is virtuous (Axiomatic Ought)

Therefore, you ought to pursue the truth (Derivative Ought)

 

Hume said nothing about being able to derives oughts from other oughts. He just said you couldn't derives oughts from mere facts about reality. 

so i understand Hume's law states that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

but when i throw an "if" at the beginning of a sentence, well... things like this can happen:

if you want to have a working car, you ought to change the oil.

the "is" is implied because it *is* true that failing to change the oil will cause your engine to weld itself in to a useless steel paperweight, which happened to my Mitsubishi last month.

so it *is* true that failing to change the oil regularly will ruin the engine.
and *if* your objective is to have a working engine,
then you *ought* to change the oil.
and a failure to change the oil would indicate that the if-condition was not met.

we can even put this in terms of UPB.

it *is* true that theft is not UPB.
and *if* your objective is to be moral...
then you *ought* not to steal
and a failure to refrain from stealing indicates the if-condition was not met.

is this a logically sound method for getting around Hume's law?

has someone already figured this out and i'm just late to the show?

No because it doesn't actually explain why you should be moral. That's okay though. There are plenty of people me included who actually have answered this question.

 

The reason you should act morally is because questioning why you should act morally is completely insane!!!!  Either you want a good answer (which is a performative contradiction) or you are expecting a truthful answer for an arbitrary reason. There is no way to even ask such a question without either contradicting yourself or employing arbitrary logic. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The Problem with Hume's law is that he was sitting on his own when he posited it. Morality only activates when you're interacting with others in some way. There are no external oughts, only a choice of wrong or right. Do you choose to behave in a way that can be supported with logically consistent / universal justifications or not?

Because society needs it. And because you can be sure you won't be corrupted. I think a huge motivation to be moral is also not to have disasters of conscience.

 

As soon as you appeal to consequences this way then the relativists can drag you down to their level. That's because consequences are just subjective preferences.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

As soon as you appeal to consequences this way then the relativists can drag you down to their level. That's because consequences are just subjective prefere

That's true. If someone accepts that morality is a true concept, which means they accept that it is true that some actions are universally preferable to others, wouldn't they be completely contradicting themselves to act as if they can then deny what they are saying they recognize is true. It's literally like saying, "so what science is true, that doesn't mean we have to do science when it's better not to." But the whole point of science is it's always what you should do when you want to be correct and consistent. If you want to be incorrect and inconsistent than I guess you can do whatever you want. Personally in my own life once I learned a valid way of defining morality, it's not like I then double-backed and acted as if there was some other condition morality had to fill other than being correct. I think I see your point now, but let me know if you have anything to add please.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

As soon as you appeal to consequences this way then the relativists can drag you down to their level. That's because consequences are just subjective preferences.

Reminds me of the theists talking about atheists dragging people down to their level, clinging to their mysticism as if weren't an artifact of human primitivity.