I venture to suggest that the relationship between the “is” and the “ought” dilemma can be solved by considering that every ought-statement has an implicit “is” statement, or statements, comprising it that are unspoken and expected to be understood.
For example, “You ought to clean your room!” = [If you don’t want to hurt your Mother’s feelings, kid, then] clean you room!
The implicit, to-be-understood part is within the brackets; and it is an “is” statement, or a series of them …Here is another example, or two:
“you ought to do me that favor” = [I will like you better if] you do me that favor.
“you ought to conduct yourself ethically” = [If you prefer harmony rather than chaos in your life, then] conduct yourself ethically!
An if-then proposition is a declarative sentence about what IS. N’est pas?
“You ought to do X” means “Doing X is the best choice you can make at this point in time” which in turn means “By doing X at this point in time, you will maximize your chances of attaining your highest goal.”
Is there anything in reality you can point to that is described by any ought? If not, to what is it true, or what in reality does it describe?
Can you randomly point to any being in reality and say, “That’s how all ought to handle their thoughts, feelings, and acts”? — or is there some standard that guides which being(s) you point at?
This pushes the question back to, “What is the highest goal?”
Yes, there certainly is. That is what people can read about; the material in the brief Chapters 2 and 3 in the first Reference listed below. It is some of what is known about Ethics. That’s the “guide.”
It is a secular approach offered {in addition to what Luke is telling us his messiah, or Master, has taught him.
It seems, though, that the lure to power for its own sake, and the worshiping of money for its own sake, as a god, are dominating and distracting people from getting the message - both the religious one and the secular one.}
(As you may have figured out by now, and what Dr. R. S. Hartman personally confirmed for me, " Intrinsic-valuation" is an academic way of speaking about loving. If an instructor speaks to kids of high-school age about love, they get all excited as their thoughts wander to eros, bodily love.)
What the proposed framework for Ethics points out, in Ch. 2 of the Structure document, is that when we I-value others we are being ethical.
And Ch. 3 explains that we are to have our Self-image correspond to an improving set of moral principles, such as the illustrative list to be found there. Those are the standards we select to live by. This is the way we grow in Morality …get a higher score, so to speak.
The best procedure is for each of the Members here at the Forum to read the text for himself, or herself. So click on the link below; then let us know your impressions of what you learned or liked.
You’re on the right track here, Magnus. Good thinking! All I might add to your wise contribution is: One’s highest goal ought to be the “Ultimate goal of Ethics” – which is that eventually, if not soon, everyone is to enjoy a Quality Life.
As to what that is, the details are spelled out in The Structure of Ethics booklet. Check it out.
Read the whole paper so as to be sure that you didn’t miss anything… just a suggestion.
The relation of ‘ought’ to ‘is’ has been a question of Moral Philosophy and it belongs to the tradition of Ethical theory. A case can be made, though, that what Icthus is teaching, and what one acquires by studying, and then applying to life, the ‘new perspective for Ethics’ is spirituality – which is even above mere traditional ethics in value. It is more valuable.