Submitted by CartesianClosedCat t3_ymx5ma in philosophy
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bbky wrote
"IS cannot become Ought but Ought needs to reference IS to even make sense." -- by me, lol.
It means we live in a reality of IS, so any Oughts we developed have to reference some IS from nature and reality, we cant develop ought statements based on nothing that IS not already there.
Even our most basic behaviors are simply biology (instinct, evolution, natural selection), basically a bunch of biological "IS" that existed long before we could conceive of any philosophical Oughts that are still rooted in our primitive biology.
According to Is/Ought fallacy, you cant say there IS gravity so we Ought to be nice to our neighbors, but we can make reference to gravity when we say we Ought not to push our neighbors off a building, because that would kill them. lol
I dont believe any moral ought can be made without making use of various scientific facts about our reality, rooted in them even.
Samuel7899 t1_iv6r9r1 wrote
Why do you assume we live in a reality of IS and not a reality of OUGHT?
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv78pec wrote
Because there is a physical reality of “is” that we have access to through our senses (being a brain in a vat notwithstanding). In general, many people agree on what “is” about the world.
There is no similar sense perception for “ought,” and in general, people do not agree on what they call an “ought.”
It seems an easy assumption that there “is” something about reality, but maybe not an “ought” considering the imbalance of assurance.
I also think desires are an “is” about the world, and to maximize the fulfillment of desires is a question of “is.” Sally desires justice, happiness, comfort, and other things. It’s a question of, if Sally does ABC and maybe convinces others to do ABC, then the world will be XYZ, where XYZ is a world that fulfills Sally’s desires. Pragmatically, XYZ should fulfill most other people’s desires because other people won’t want to do ABC if it doesn’t meet their desires.
Samuel7899 t1_iv7c7dl wrote
> In general, many people agree on what "is" about the world
> in general, people do not agree on what they call an "ought"
While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.
"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is".
You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".
You're describing Sally's desires as an if/than statement, and yet you don't think that's a potential "ought"?
I'm not arguing for or against either... While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"... I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought". Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv8s7ja wrote
>While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.
I'm not either. I'm commenting on your question of "Why do you assume we live in a reality of "is" and not a reality of "ought?" I am not the person you asked that to, but I figured I'd answer anyways. I am assuming, as I'm sure the other person does, too, that there definitely is an "is" to the world. If I'm making assumptions, I'll assume away the thing that seems the most obvious until I hear something that makes it questionable.
>"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is"
When I say desires, I mean it in the broadest, evolutionary sense possible, something like "material, emotions, and stimulation the organism wants/needs/desires for survival, health, and happiness." It's hard to call those things an "ought" because dogs obviously want things, they even need things to survive, but to say the dog "ought" to seek out the game of fetch seems weird, just as it seems weird to say a dog ought to eat to survive, unless you just mean an if/then if it wants to survive, then it should eat. The dog just "is" wanting to play fetch, in the same way my want for equal treatment under the law is a chain of conclusions stemming from my desire to be happy and healthy in the world, and that desire to be happy and healthy just "is" what I desire.
>You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".
"Ought" arises when one questions what they should be desiring, as in what is a "good" thing to desire. The question pretends that a person is able to control what makes them happy and healthy. People just desire to be happy and healthy, and the nature of what makes someone happy is not under their control, just as the desire to be fulfilled/happy/healthy/survive isn't under their control. It just is a truth or a false that one desires this or that, that ABC leads to XYZ. The "ought" is if one should desire this or that, but that assumes one can control their desires, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for free will.
>While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"
If one means "ought" to mean "if you want this, then you ought to do that", then I think you can craft an "is" from "ought." If you want to solve world hunger, then you ought to do things that further that goal.
>I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought".
As I said, the reality of the universe seems to really be really real, and there really seems to be some kind of real set of rules that really determines how things play out in this reality. There is no equivalent overwhelmingly obvious set of rules for the "ought reality."
>Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".
I think it's very hard to imagine an "is" that derives from "ought" because if there is no "is" to begin, then there is no "is" to behave how it "ought" to behave. If there is an "ought," which I don't believe really exists, it must be proceeded by an "is" that can do what it ought. Edit: Re-reading this, I guess if we can imagine that "ought" exists somewhere, that there is a 'Higgs boson field of morality' that we just haven't discovered yet, then I supposed it could exist before, after, or come to exist exactly at the same time as everything else.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv8zw3v wrote
Can space, time and matter exist if no conscious minds are around?
I mean, 13.7 billion years of the universe and most of those billion years are without life, we know this because we measured it with our scientific instruments.
Gravity IS a thing regardless of what we "ought" to think about it, even without any humans around, gravity would still be a thing.
Are you saying all of time, space and matter cannot exist if we humans dont think about them?
Shiningc t1_ivrwdao wrote
Because ought is the reality of the future, and we currently live in the present. We're stuck in the present with no access to the future, until we get there.
whiskeyriver0987 t1_ivi1hh4 wrote
Your analogy only works if you have a moral framework that that can derive that killing you neighbor is bad. You haven't solved anything.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_ivi5bqx wrote
I was trying to solve something? lol news to me.
Also, dont know what you are trying to say.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments