"Ought" Derivable from "Is"

The separation of is and ought is abstraction.
It’s like saying 2 clouds are separate.
It seems to make sense, but in reality,
the clouds are transient.
They intermix, and appear, and disappear.

A cloud is not an individual thing.
It is many small things.

Philosophical errors.

I hope you don’t mind me pointing out logical flaws - I understand it can come across as patronising and some people find it difficult. Not my intention.

Your coloured additions unfortunately introduce another one to premise 2:
If we separate P2 by its logical conjunction (the “and”) into the subject “Humans” with two different predicates “condition OUGHT_ness from IS” and “derive OUGHT_ness from IS”, we note the latter predicate is equivalent to the conclusion.
(Humans) “derive OUGHT_ness from IS” is semantically identical to “OUGHT is derived from IS”. This is known as “begging the question”, which just means “assuming the conclusion” - i.e. a kind of circular reasoning where the conclusion is already in the premises. This is an informal logical fallacy - because of course your conclusion will follow from the premises if you’ve already stated it in a premise from which your conclusion is derived.

Deriving “ought” from “is”, and “ought” derived from is", use the active and passive voice respectively to mean the same thing - as I brought up in my last post.
I don’t want you to misunderstand me - using either voice is entirely valid grammatically: “being conditioned” is indeed grammatically correct, and so is (humans) “deriving ought from is”. The only thing that’s different is the “point of view”, if you like.
“The dog followed the human” and “the human was followed by the dog” describe identical situations, only the former (active voice in this case) is the point of the view of the dog, and the latter (passive voice in this case) is the point of view of the human. The dog is doing an action in the former, and the human is passively involved in what the dog’s doing in the latter, but the two statements are logically interchangeable as the semantic value carried by either voicing is identical.
As a suggestion: try to make the voices you’re using consistent throughout your argument if that helps you more easily assess the validity of its progression, because I think grammar is tripping you up here.

For your P1, you have the element “IS” being part of the set “things that are conditioned by humans”. This is fairly tautologous, because the property of existence is a pre-condition for being acted on in any way (e.g. being conditioned (by humans)).
For your P2, you state that “humans condition oughtness” as a fact, which seems fine to me.
If your conclusion is to be that “ought is derived from is”, perhaps it’s first necessary to establish that “conditioning” amounts to the object of conditioning being “derived” from the subject doing the conditioning. This would allow P2 to state that “oughtness is derived from humans”, or “humans derive oughtness” (same thing, different voice).

In this case, for P2 to validly lead to C1, P1 would have to be something like “humans are derived from IS_ness”. This would allow the form:
P1: B <= A
P2: C <= B
C1: C <= A
where A denotes “IS_ness”, B denotes “humans”, and C denotes “OUGHT_ness”. I wrote the arrows backwards to mimic the passive voice that makes the argument easier to read:
“Humans” derived from “is”, ought derived from “humans”, therefore “ought” derived from “is”.

And I guess humans are indeed derived from “IS_ness”, given objective existence independent of the human perception of it - as most people believe it to be.
But as sound as this syllogism now is, all it really says is that “ought” is a thing that exists that comes to existence via the existence of humans. This seems fairly uncontroversial.

“You can’t get an is from an ought” is getting at something different. “Ought” is an element of the set “Is”, because oughtness “exists”. But there is nothing necessarily “ought” as a result of what “is”.
It’s possible to assert an ought “within” the scope of what “is”, about something that “is”, as something that “is”. This invokes the realm of modal logic:
P1: “Is” possibly derives humans (:white_medium_square:A → ◇B)
P2: Humans possibly derive oughts (◇B → ◇C)
C1: It is possible that “is” derives “ought”, but it is not necessary that “is” derives “ought”. (:white_medium_square:A → ◇C ∧ ¬:white_medium_square:C)

Basically, you can derive “ought” from “is”, but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it’s not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it’s logic.

Silhouette,

We’ve been through this before. Syllogisms don’t work. Period. They’re interesting. Intuition is greater than our current logic trees.

When I said months ago that nobody wants their consent violated, you came at me with “nobody wants, what nobody wants”. In this statement of yours you argued that it was too circular (didn’t refer to anything outside itself) to be meaningful.

Thing is: every being on this earth knows they don’t want their consent violated. Everyone intuitively knows what that means. What I’m doing here is attacking your syllogism methodology. And prismatics as well.

That both of you think syllogisms are intellectual is absurd. I even brought up the point of infinite counting numbers as an example. We know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Etc… goes on forever, but since nobody can count an infinity it’s impossible to prove with a syllogism (try it!)

Logic is ultimately intuitive, inferential …

Syllogisms don’t work. They’re the curiosities of hobbyists.

This is not true.

If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island… there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
“Morality” has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary… the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.

The nihilist position approaches value as arbitrary in content, as not necessary to a humans existence. I beg to differ.

Existence, for a self-governing entity, is contingent upon being value-consistent. So whereas essence (character, value, ought) isn’t prior to coming into existence, it is required for continued existence.

(the Is extracts the Ought from itself in as far as it withstands time, entropy)

Not an issue with me as long as you have an argument to support your point.

I believe you missed out the critical fundamental and foundation to the OP., i.e.

I agree with your point.
It is only because I am too hasty.

P2 require more explanation regarding the term ‘condition’.
Here is an analogy:
Humans condition scientific knowledge/fact/truth from “IS” via the Scientific Framework.
Similarly,
humans condition facts from “IS” via specific framework and system of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, geometry, legal, economics to produce their respective specific conditional facts. In this case, I am more concern with moral facts produced from a moral framework and system.

I can revised P2 to;
Humans condition ought_ness from IS. [explained and justified as above]
How? I will have to explain and justify how it can be done just like Science is doing with scientific facts.

Noted will do where possible, but I believe there is no issue with my syllogism above within the explained circumstances.

I believe this is why the foundation stated above is relevant.

Note the “PAR” i.e. "Philosophical Anti-Realism. mentioned above.
Within PAR, objective existence is NOT independent of human conditions.
Humans co-interact with each other that enable the emergence of reality.
Neither humans nor reality precede the other.
Therefore PAR do not accept, humans are derived from “IS”.

Thus my P1,
P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
It could also be vice-versa since they co-interact.
note I qualified that to PAR.

Note my foundation, i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism [PAR] which oppose Philosophical Realism.

Thus based on PAR, I believe my syllogism is valid [“derived” deleted in P2];

P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition* OUGHT_ness from IS
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is abstractable from IS

  • as explained above, i.e. via conditioning framework and system.

Critique definitely welcome.

Removed

Syllogisms are not the ALL of arguments nor reality.
However they provide a very structured framework and systematic approach for criticism and improvement of one’s thoughts and ideas.

My syllogism enable an easy means for critique and improvements to one’s idea.
As highlighted by Silhouette i have revised my syllogisms and there is a basis for me to provide additional explanation and premises.

There are other means beside syllogism, e.g. narratives, explanations, induction, reflective equilibrium, coherentism and others.
You just cannot throw in anything intuitive without conforming to one of the above, otherwise anything goes to the extreme of allowing the most terrible evil intent to creep in.

In general, agree to the bolded.

A simple enough formula which, I think, answers your full query.

When I think of “ought”, an accordance to a moral code comes to mind.

You’re right that the term is also commonly used synonymously with individual values, even irrespective of moral codes:
If you want to survive, you ought to eat and drink.
If you want to get from A to B, you ought to move.

But even this usage is circular: if you value Y, you to ought to Z. Why ought you to value Y? Because if you value Y, it’s because you value X such that if you value X then you ought to Y. And so on potentially infinitely regressively.
An ought must be an assumed premise somewhere down the line in order for the conclusion to be an ought: circular reasoning.

You might say you value X because such a value “just is”. In this case, the “ought” is the “is”, immediately. I can’t help valuing eating, because sufficient hunger compels me to value seeking food whether I want it to or not. It is upon me, immediately: the “ought” premise is built in, but then there is the frontal cortex that can mediate these impulses. That enables me to just “do nothing”, to “not value the compulsion”. It is perfectly possible to do this and potentially even “ought” myself out of “is” altogether. It would be anthropomorphising to attribute value to entropy, but it appears that existence simply will increase “your” entropy whether you “ought” to elongate the time it takes from birth to death - or not. It didn’t have to, but it just does whether it ought to or not, and you didn’t have to value counter to it.

Basically, remove the “ought” from premises such as “human survival” or “human preference”, and you have nothing about “is” to make into an “ought”. Objectives would not exist in the first place, because there is no value to precede it.

I disagree. The regression misses the object of the original intention , not because it was consciously abandoned, but because it was forgotten . as based on the progressive nature of development.

The nurturing of the young at some point looses it’s automatic reflex character, and becomes some matter of choice, when, for instance, and at that point the 'is’and the ‘ought’ become traditionally transparent, seeking some value, in a moral alignment.

Guilt is the subconscious misalignment between initial unrealized motives, and later projected objective beliefs, and the adult parent learns by a different set of rules, why he should not abandon it’s young
Even animals learn that such may be necessary, and the will hold their ground in the defence of their young.

When talk about the role of …then, it is inaccurate to premise the idea if absolute unconscious motivation with zero choice.

Guilt is the unknown result of misaligned relationship in this regard, and religion happened when social consciousness had to institute such a tool that would enable existence to sustain the progressive need for constant re-affirmation for cultural development.

The question could have not been posed as such initially, and early religions reflected a basic disparity between intended relationships which led to foundemental objectives.

That most religions started from intuitive aspects of behavior is factual, and it needed higher developing objects of transition to enable it to sustain refined moral objectives.

That these objectives are relative and not iron clad ideal artifice, do not take away their significance, but reduce the misaligned importance that a basic elemental question of whether existence should go on.

But hard pressed, that premise dilutes retroactively unto the foundation of the most basic organic level , and looses it’s signifiers.

At the same time, to say, that such dilution of objective criteria simply ‘is’ may also be a misnomer, because at some point it transposed into choices: here, between abandoning it sustaining the reason why .

Even faced with the horrendous post modern challenges we face today, the fallacy resolves itself axiomatically, which is the reverse of the tautology pointed to.

True, absent values from which to form objectives there is no ought.
But fortunately the one self-evident truth, the well from which we draw everything else admits to values.

There exists qualitative experience… it’s the one thing we can be certain there IS.

Yeah, that’s the human experience.
You enter in, you’re valuing right from the start: ought “is” by default - we can be certain that this qualitative experience IS, I agree.

How do you derive this ought from what is?
In order for ought to be derivable from is, “is” must first exist - no issues there, seems pretty straightforwardly tautologous - and from then “ought” must subsequently be derivable.
The intention here is to justify how you enter in with ought right from the start by default.
The intention here is determine whether your ought is “justified” objectively.

Several problems: how do you remove “ought” from “is”, in order to assess it objectively, when it’s all you knew from the start? People all seem to have these very different and often irreconcilable ideas about what they, you, and everyone “ought” (to value), varying considerably geographically and historically. And if you have an objective to do this, aren’t you failing to remove “ought” from “is” from the start anyway? Even if you did succeed, how do you evaluate value without value?

Chiefly - the whole enterprise is flawed: it’s like trying to evaluate consciousness. You’re always going to be doing it circularly from consciousness being necessary from the start and throughout.
How do you evaluate value pre-value? It’s a contradiction: you can’t validly derive ought from is.

You’re confusing what “ought” indicates as separate from what an IS indicates.

“Oughts” are about HOW to navigate to goals, which may include adopting other values.
So for example, if you value your life, you OUGHT to also value clean water, IF the reality you are in makes clean water a necessary condition for your continued existence.

You can build a network of “oughts” from a single objective as constrained by reality.
Much the same way you can build a massive list of oughts from the singular objective of chess as constrained by the rules.
You can learn the value of different pieces, the value of individual moves, the value of strategy and forward planning, the value of understanding your opponent, being able to anticipate their moves etc.
It’s possible to not value any such thing and still be playing chess to win… but then you often fail.
These values all spring up as “oughts” DERIVED from the two simple IS statements that make up chess…

What IS the Circumstance
What IS the Objective

It should be clear at this point that while ought can be derived from IS, it’s not always simple or easy and we may fail to get it right…
The same is true of trying to build a coherent model of the reality we experience… physics is a mere model, we think reflects reality… we can be wrong.
Likewise we may have ideas about how to lead a life so as to have the quality of our experience be satisfactory… and we can be wrong.

There are objective facts to be had here… and they will inform what ought to be valued, given what IS valued.

Syllogisms are absurd…

Let me attempt one!

1.) Consent violation occurs
2.) nobody wants their consent violated
3.) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4.) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I’m sure I skipped a few steps, but that’s not really the point. Syllogisms NEVER define soundness of the IS!!!

Let alone the inference of the OUGHT!!!

Note meaning of consent again.

What does your [2] mean;
2.) nobody wants their consent violated

Re [a] You mean, if someone give consent [permission] to others for something to happen, then, his consent should not be violated?
What if, as in the last example’ Hitler gave consent to kill Jews?
It would not be immoral to violent such a consent.

Re[b] if someone consented to do something evil,
his consent should not be violated?

You are not using the term ‘consent’ appropriately in the above.

What is more appropriate as generally accepted is no human should violate the ‘basic human dignity’ of another, .e.g. take another as a chattel slave.

And what I already told you. In a consent violating reality such as ours, ‘law’ enforcement is reasonable.

But you’re not looking at the bigger picture here: the macro

Nobody ultimately wants to live in a reality where consent can possibly be violated. Not Hitler, not the allies… everyone hates that shit!

It’s a macro law of existence.

I’m the type of being that when any beings consent is violated, it violates my consent.

You should be thankful beings like me exist, because I can guarantee every being on earth will and would be sent to hell. You’re as bad a Hitler, you just don’t understand it yet. Consent violating realities spare nobody. You’re in a hell realm right now. Almost every possible decision you make here will send you to an even worse hell. In a zero sum reality, you must proactively regret ALL of your memories to be spared.

I certainly agree that objective facts inform, and that they can precede an “ought”.

My point is that they merely temper the translation of one “ought” to another. An “ought” that’s informed by an “is” comes after this “is”, but it doesn’t originate in this “is”. The “is” can certainly be significant in this process, but it’s just the decoration (the style/way) from one “ought” to another “ought” - it’s not where the latter “ought” came from. The “ought” came from a previous “ought”, and the “is” just tells you how. Not why.

A good “is” can describe how one “ought” to go about achieving an objective better than a bad “is”. That bad “is” can in turn describe how one “ought” to go about achieving that same objective better than a worse “is”. One “ought” to pick the best “is” that’s on offer, but only provided the best “is” was what is valued in the first place. Maybe you want a challenge, maybe you want to self-destruct, maybe you ought not to pick the best way for whatever reason - an “is” can build on the mechanics of how to get anywhere, but without an initial ought to direct it, it has nothing to build upon. “How” needs a “why” - an “is” needs an “ought”. You can’t derive an “is” without first having an “ought”.

I agree that people tend to not want their consent violated - because this is basically the same as saying everyone wants what they want. This is most apparent in babies who know nothing more than to express distress whenever they aren’t getting what they want, which just so happens to manipulate the parents into providing it. Gradually they learn to cope with not getting what they want sometimes and in certain ways - adapting to the environment and the parenting. They might eventually even learn the value of self-sacrifice, delaying gratification, and taking on difficult challenges instead of choosing an easier path. It’s easy enough to frame these more advanced behaviours in terms of them consenting to a certain degree of “not getting what they want” in order to attain a certain degree of “getting what they want” in another way. But even if you do this, you recognise a relativity to “consent” that isn’t as absolute as “nobody wants their consent violated” - it looks like more of a trade-off where there’s a definite overall aversion to consent violation, but not clearly and cleanly - not devoid of some degree of consent to have one’s consent violated. It’s not black and white, and shouldn’t be considered and phrased in a black and white way.

This is always going to be the case in a universe where there is entropy, competition, and where planning is effective. A universe without these things would perhaps eradicate consent violation and you’d exist like a kind of pleasure-amoeba constantly wishing for more and more pleasure, and getting your wish over and over without any hint of obstacle. A bizarre existence, certainly without higher purpose - but I guess you wouldn’t care if “getting what you want” was constant regardless of what you did.

Onto syllogisms - unfortunately any attack you can possibly mount against them will be self-contradictory.
“Syllogisms don’t work.”
“Why is that anything more than a claim interchangeable with its opposite or anything else?”
“Because…” - and you’ve already begun to construct a syllogism whether you realise it or not.

If you have a “statement” because of “reasons”, the statement is contingent upon said reasons such that “if reasons, then statement”.
Your premises are your reasons, your conclusion is your statement. Your reasoning can be reduced to a syllogism.
So, “syllogisms don’t work” relying on the syllogistic is a contradiction.

The only way around this would be to dodge all reasoning and logic, and simply “claim”.
Blindly following your intuition can certainly precede this, and you can simply deny reason citing said intuition. You’d be impossible to argue with, and any and all interaction with you would be irrational and without purpose - except for you to simply express your intuition.

If however you intended to be reasonable/rational instead, every argument you make could be reduced to syllogisms that would either be valid or invalid and maybe even sound (or unsound). Trying to complain about syllogisms is to try and deny the exercise of thoroughly and precisely breaking down your reasoning, presumably to let through any prejudice and fallacies that you merely intuit without explicit reason. I’m not going to let you or anyone else off that easily.

Silhouette,

My argument is simple:

The IS from a syllogism cannot be proven (sound) (I’m going to turn the argument of circularity against you!)

The inference (the ought) can also not be proven.

We have a higher brain function that performs these tasks for us.

How can you prove 1,2,3,4,5,6… is an infinite sequence? You can’t count all of them to PROVE it!!!

We have higher cognitive functions than syllogisms!

Even accepting this argument is a higher cognitive function.