Maybe it has something to do with self-value.
Maybe “ought” ought to follow from “is” in the sense that one must do what one’s values command him to do.
This self-value, where does it hide? How can we see it?
I said nothing of “remaining”. I said that it “must” be what it is, thus it “ought” to be what it is. There is no option in that regard for sane people. It is the acceptance of reality. One must always begin from where ever one is, thus one ought to begin from where ever one is.
Like causality, every ought will inevitably lead to another. In a sense, that is the whole point (giving direction through time). For example, if one is to eat, one ought to open his mouth, chew, swallow, or whatever it takes. A million details could be brought to focus, but only the braid strokes are needed for most people.
You are referring to opinions. I stated a fact of morality (“If A is, then ought B”) . Whether you or anyone disagrees, doesn’t change the truth of it one way or another. Differing opinions doesn’t change reality.
My ought-assertion did not exclude such considerations. A great many other things could be included (different subjects).
That is not something that ought to occur, but if that occurs, then one is already no longer living.
Self-valuing (as FC will tell you) is an innate definitional part of any living being.
You are not answering my questions. You are evading them.
Why should something be what it is? How is this “ought” derived from “is”?
I thought that I had answered that.
“What is”, comes first, and not as an “ought”, but merely as “what is” (scripturally known as “God”).
It is from “What is” (“God”) that “what ought to be” (aesthetics) and also what “ought to be done” (morality) are derived.
The only distinction in religion is that in religion one is to merely take it on faith from the prophet (just like science is taught today). Outside of religion, especially in philosophy, one is NOT to take it on faith, but attempt to work through the rationale (to be one’s own prophet). The conclusion, void of error, should work out to be the same.
So a thing “should be what it is” because that is what it is. Or religiously speaking, “A thing should be what it is because God made it that way”. Both say the exact same thing, merely using different words. In both cases what “should be (currently)” is directly dictated by “what is”. There is no rational option because nothing can ever be what it isn’t.
That a thing should be what it is (e.g. alive) does not necessarily follow from what it is (e.g. alive.) This is an imaginary link. It is possible for a thing to be what it is (e.g. alive) and to think that it should be something else (e.g. dead.)
“Ought” is neither rational nor irrational choice. For a decision to be considered rational or irrational, there must be a goal in relation to which it can be evaluated. When there is no goal, there can be neither rational nor irrational decisions. In such a case, there are only beyond rational, or extra-rational, decisions that are grounded in nothing other than impulses.
The choice of life over death is one such choice.
The connection between ought and ought is even more tenuous than the connection between is and ought.
If one ought to eat then one needs to determine when, how, where, what one ought to eat. It can be trivialized as the act of opening one’s mouth but in reality it is far more complicated.
You can say that because you consider your morality as ‘a fact of morality’ and the morality of others as opinions on morality. But that’s just your narrow view.
Clearly nonsense. There is no basis on which to consider them as “no longer living” when they make the decision.
I agree. Not only ‘ought’ but ‘is’ also. It depends on how you define ‘is’ and ‘ought’ because people will see themselves and things differently. This way, no matter what or who you are and what you do, you’ll always get the ‘is-to-ought’. This is true even in matters of death, where you get Islamic suicide bombers (or kamikaze pilots) whose ‘is-to-ought’ is in perfect synch, in their minds. So, you’ll need parameters in defining ‘is’.
Excellent.
The thing that either method fails to identify is the valuing; not so much the assumed value, but the assuming; this very thing Hume critiqued and disliked, the dishonesty, is the very substance of the being. And he was not free of it; consider how he translated this valid issue with moral oughts to an objection to scientific prediction, to Newtonian method; framing N’s laws as if they were oughts that N derived from an is.
That is the confusion in a broader sense, the one that, until Nietzsche, not even philosophers had any bearing on.
Clever, but that’s not what’s going on.
The thing that applies both, but differently, to “is” and “ought” is necessity.
If there were some kind of universal equation to be made, absolute necessity produces relative contradictions, which manifest as a transforming tapestry of valuings and values, the transformation at the heart of which is '“will to power”; a term that is still a metaphor, as Nietzsche warned.
In the sense that Nietzsche must be made empirical, the 20th century can be summed up as a couple of brave but failed attempts.
I think that you might be conflating “ought to become”, “should have become”, and “ought to be”. Those are different issues.
[list]Ought to become = what I want or expect in the future
Should have become = what was intended or expected before now
Ought to be = what I want it to be at this moment.[/list:u]
The third is the one to which I was referring. A person might want reality to be different than it is, but an intelligent, sane, and enlightened person never wants against reality except to change it from where it currently is to a different future state. Otherwise it is like wanting 4+4 to equal 3. 2+2 ought to equal 4.
That is for future states. There can be no choice concerning the exact present state. It is what it is, thus “it currently ought to be what it is”, “2+2 ought to equal 4 (without options)”.
The goal for that most primary ought is merely sanity. The goal for future concerns is another matter. It is always irrational to deny reality to oneself except in defense of greater irrationality (e.g. pretend something so as to divert a fear).
Again, you are referring to a future state. Everything ought to be the way it is (considering its past). What one wants it to be in the future ought to be in consideration of the present and ones needs compendium.
Perhaps to you. If one has a goal, one ought to go through the steps to get it. For each step, if one has yet to reach that goal, one ought to go to the next step. Rationality is a rationed chain of steps toward a goal.
I am explaining something and you are saying “that is your opinion”. Such is a meaningless response.
The definition of living involves the pursuit of continuing to live. When one stops trying is when he starts dying. When one has decided to no longer pursue life, he is already dead (as is common rhetoric throughout ancient scriptures).
There is more than one path that leads to Rome.
Given the responses that you have given to me and Magnus, it seems that you don’t really understand the issues.
Death or submitting to rape. Death or supporting a tyrant.
Do you not understand the ethical choice?
Every ought concerns a future state. Nobody is talking about changing the present state … since that’s impossible.
Ought always refers to some future moment, distant or close.
What you ought to be in the present moment is another phrasing of what you ought to be in the immediate future.
There is no necessary connection between what one is and what one ought to be. If one is alive, that does not necessarily mean one ought to be alive.
You can choose to kill yourself, for example. That sort of decision is obviously not grounded in what is. It goes directly against it.
There is, quite simply, no necessary connection between is and ought.
You are trying to salvage the idea of necessary connection by arguing that one who decides to commit suicide is doing so because he is already dead. Which is ridiculous.
One who chooses death may be more consciously alive than one who saves his own life.
You speak of “a rich and valuable ethical life.” How do you define “ethical life”?
Irrelevant. You really did interact with Bigus too much. 
Even if so (and it certainly isn’t), “that is your opinion” is a meaningless response (implying that you “don’t understand the issue”).
When you place a goal above your pursuit of being alive, you are already dead (unless you didn’t really succeed). That doesn’t necessarily mean that you will not live again later when and if your will changes back to a pursuit of living.
And what I was talking about was only the “most primary ought” (accepting reality). From that point other oughts arise.
See above.
The one who lives off the land in Alaska is not harming anyone. He is not squandering the resources of the Earth. He lives in harmony with his surroundings. He serves nobody and expects nobody to serve him.
Is that not ethical?
Necessity is self-imposed. When you choose one impulse as your dominant (= unconditional) impulse, then necessity follows. It becomes necessary to organize all other impulses such that they serve, rather than sabotage, the dominant impulse.
In the modern USA, it will get you shot (because there are no witnesses).
It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. 
Oddly enough, the Hall of Heroes is filled with those who gave up their lives for greater goals. 
Which demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues at stake.