Ahh! I see. Much clearer, thank you 
Edit: and my apologies for the misreading.
First OF ALL (my nose up in the air ), epistemology is not obviously the realm of the “ought.” Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what it is, how we get it, etc. etc. The concept of “ought,” of prescription, is instead central to morality/ethics. To claim oughts as just another form of knowledge is to assume already the dissolution of the is-ought distinction. The ‘is’ part of the “is-ought” distinction, the way Hume conceived of it, is actually the epistemic part of the deal, not the ontological.
Oughts come from somewhere, but do they come merely from knowledge of what is? Hume didn’t see how this could be possible. That doesn’t mean morality is nonsense or without force, but it does mean that ought statements might not fit in with other kinds of knowledge. For instance, what any particular person desires or values or what human beings desire and value generally does not figure into what makes facts, like gravity or photosynthesis, true. But human desires and values do seem to be an important part of imperatives, “oughts”.
Conclusion: The Fact-Value (Is-Ought) Distinction shouldn’t be blown off so easily.
I think the “is-ought” dilemma is only a problem if you believe there is no God. Obviously if there IS a God then morals are objectified and I “OUGHT” do such and such.
A particular sort of God; it can’t be the Deist’s God, it must be a personal God who intervenes in our universe.
It seems to me that in reacting to the behaviors of others out in the world it can for all practical purposes be both.
We say we ought to behave in particular ways because there is no alternative in a world where people interact in conflicting, heterogeneous ways.
Just imagine how useless such a distinction would be if you chose to live utterly apart from others. Then ought would revolve entirely around achieving a particular aim. Why? Because there would be no others around to contest it.
But with others we are driven [by evolution] to interact through complex mental, emotional and psychological wants, needs and desires. The aims ever collide. And in order that our own aim comes out on top we feel compelled to impose oughts on the behaviors of others.
Morality is just one of many words invented to describe this basic, fundamental human reality.
But: What ought we to do? Now, that is a poll, right?
Yeah, sure.
What are objectified morals?
That would mean that they are not dependent on us, that they are part of the substance of the world.
I believe that your poll is a false dichotomy.
Value (or better, “relevance”) is what determines what the mind is going to choose as “matter” or “substance” or “entity”. That is an issue of epistemology, not really ontology. Ontology is formed from the predefined epistemological entities. Once it is decided that there is something that we are going to call an “electron” because of its relevance to our life (epistemological issue), an ontological construction is formed regarding exactly how the dubbed “electrons” behave.
But Hume’s “is-ought” dichotomy involves such things as ethics and moral values; “is it a fact that people must behave this way, or is it something that people ought to do for some presumed purpose”. That issue is only vaguely ontological and has nothing to do with epistemology.
Frankly, from my perspective, that entire era of philosophers; Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer,…, were no more than children rising from a dark age, but no where near being fully awake (“enlightened”). It is silly to be still discussing them in worship of their greatness. One might as well be worshiping Newton’s Laws of Motion. Seriously, Newton had more going for him than the rest of that crew and he has been well passed over. For heaven’s sake, grow up already.
What in the world does Newton have to tell us about the manner in which we ought to live? If you are enlightened then by all means edify.
Apparently you entirely missed the point.
Newton is merely an example of someone who woke up to the idea of thinking about how things are or aren’t. My statement was that EVEN HE has been well surpassed by those wiling to think even more. So when it comes to Hume and Kant and the like, it is ridiculous to be arguing about their opinions still to this day. It is very much like arguing whether of the third graders, John and Sally, which had a more meaningful understanding of algebra. Who really cares? Does reality have no significance to you at all?
How would one know that morals are part of the substance of the world and what, in particular, the world commands?
The point Chester is making: because God told us.
A seriously good question to ask. =D>
I’d make an exception for Hume. I think his extreme kind of scepticism (the problems of induction and causality) has never been adequately refuted by subsequent philosophers. All the others have been argued “through” by subsequent generations; Hume seems to have been argued “around”.
1st off, is, is nothing like ought.
Is, is descriptive, this is how the world is, I’m fat, you’re ugly.
Ought, ought is prescriptive, this is how the ought to be, I ought to be skinny, you ought to be beautiful.
Ises, are mental reflections of how the world works.
Oughts, are mental projections of how the world ought to work.
Ises, are apparent/evident in the world and objective (input).
Oughts are nowhere apparent/evident in the world, they are expressions of our wants and needs, hopes and dreams and subjective (output).
Ises are an acknowledgement of the world.
Oughts seek to change the world, or keep the world from changing, they’re expressions of our will and often our imagination.
Ought = an explicit order
The world ought to be less violent! = I command the world to be less violent!
The same would have been said (and very probably was) about Newton, 200 years ago.
If you can’t think PAST those people, then you aren’t thinking at all.
You may not be able to deduce an ought from an is,
but my question would be, from what then?
The Bible? The Koran? Telepathic Aliens? Reading tea leaves? no wait, that’s an is
Even morality as commanded in the Bible reduces to an is - it is a fact that some people claim it as moral authority.
I don’t miss the point so much as bend it towards something I feel is [perhaps] more relevant to…the human condition?
For example, the misuse of the word reality.
Newton is as much at a loss here as all the others in proposing a more enlightened distinction between the way world is in reality and the way the world ought to be in reality. And it is something physicists never really consider with respect to the relationships they probe.
Some things are real for all of us. And some things only appear to be real from a point of view.