Is-Ought: Valid distinction, or false dichotomy?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
81

First of all, by “ordered” I did not mean from without but from within.

That said, a few years ago it was reported by the BBC a tribe had been located on the border between Brazil and Peru. It had as they say “never been contacted before by the outside world’”.

Still, the folks living in this tribe are just like us. In other words, they must be able to sustain themselves from day to day through viable production…and then sustain themselves further over time through viable reproduction.

All human communities start there. It’s just that some evolve a superstructure so complex and multifaceted it is easy to lose sight of it.

And yet, however insular and integrated this tribe may be, it is composed of individual points of view melding into a community. Or, as anthropologists point out time and again, even on the level of subsistence, social, political and economic relationships can be profoundly complex and the lives of no two individuals ever unfold entirely in the same way. So there will be conflicts.

That is a fact of life that seems deeply rooted in the human condition. But, however we order oursleves in our interactions, there does not seem to be a way in which to determine the most rational or ethical manner in which to live. Either from within any particular community or between them. Instead, we incessantly bump into folks who think one way and embrace one “good” while others think in another way and embrace a conflicting “good”.

It’s just that in our culture the options are considerably more…expansive?

82

I liked that whole post, except your theological slips like a “human condition” that things can be deeply rooted in.

83

The organic condition.
What is human is precisely what makes humans different from each other.
One type is distinguished from an other type by differences within the type not apparent to the other type.
Inward reflection, DNA.

84

Ok… Lets try this, ile go step by step:

“What the “noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded” have done is they have given the concept of morals the widespread, institutionalized authority that the concept enjoys now, as only aristocrats in positions of power and influence can.”

This seems obvious, I think Nietzsche would agree with this. All im saying is that people with power/influence would have been a likely cause for the institutionalization of morals as we are acquainted with them now in civilized society. I think for the most part, in history, large scale civilizations were organized under the control of few powerful people.

“But morality existed in some form long before aristocracies and organized governments. It existed in the earliest tribes and even in different species.”

This seems obvious. Im not sure what could be controversial here… Observing social animals you will find behavioral patterns indicative of a morality. IE a set of observed rules that hold relatively constant among different groups of the same animal. Like a pride of lions or group of monkeys. And the reactions to the breaking of these rules will be relatively constant, such as aggression and violence as was the example with stealing a mate’s lady.

“Nietzsche might claim that in tribal societies it was likely the Alpha males (or females) that dictated morality, but this would be inaccurate I think. The Alphas certainly had an influence on early morals, especially on how other members treated them, but there was, without a doubt, a set of learned behavioral practices that governed interaction among the “common folk” members of the tribe that the Alphas had nothing to do with.”

Also pretty obvious… Ive never watched a discovery or Nat Geo show in which they concluded that the way any 2 animals in a group will interact will be solely based on what the alpha of the group enforces. Many of the emergent behavioral patters seem to be independent of the attention of the alpha…

“Im thinking of interactions way back in the primate days, like grooming your buddies to gain favor and cement yourself in the social framework. And interactions like, getting beat up when you try to hook up with someone else’s monkey…”

This happens… Watch some nature programs! :slight_smile:

“Such interactions develop into an unspoken sense of how to behave in the group, and this is the origin of morality.”

Animals learn… When their behavior leads to unfavorable results, they learn not to do that, and when it leads to favorable results, they repeat the action. This knowledge is the “unspoken sense of how to behave in the group” and what else is that other than an early form of an unspoken morality…

“Eventually, as our ability to communicate improved, we would have been able to articulate these heuristics, and those would have been the pre-cursors to words such as good and bad.”

Seems obvious… If we have rules weve learned to follow, as our method of communication evolves into spoken and written word, we would codify those rules…

“And these heuristics are, without question, all about “usefulness.” These heuristics are borne out of a punishment/reward system. When you groom your buddy, he is happy, and in one form or another expresses his affection. Either through grooming you back or sharing his banana, or having your back if you get into a fight. When you try to steal his monkey-lady, you get beat up, and this unpleasant experience leads to developing the heuristic that picking up taken women is bad. If there was no benefit for the recipient of the grooming, and no consequent expression of affection, then the heuristic would never evolve.”

Ask any animal expert. I cant imagine how this could be controversial.

“Over time, these heuristics become ingrained in the culture and they become more like the “cultural values” that we know of today.”

Pretty obvious… We know cultures promote and adhere to particular values via tradition. We see this in all stages of culture, from the most primitive “untouched” tribes to mainstream cultures as we know them today. I am claiming that these traditional values are the more complicated successors of the basic behavioral heuristics found in less complex groups. This is a conclusion based on the similarities between traditional values and basic behavioral heuristics. Im not sure if you would want to disagree with this or how you would do it…

“Somewhere along in the process, there is this detachment from the utility of the heuristics that the “English Psychologists” mention when they speak of people forgetting the origins. What happens is that, as the values become fundamental elements of the cultural identity, the individual’s ego takes over as the motivational force behind being “moral.” The motivation to follow the heuristics detaches from the perceived utility, and it essentially becomes “cool to be moral.” “Cool” meaning, highly regarded within the culture and among peers. Since the Ego is a mechanism in social animals which motivates members to climb their social hierarchies, this becomes the force behind morality.”

This is my own theory based on personal experience and observed behavior in others regarding cultural identity and the ego. That the ego is an evolutionary mechanism that drives us to seek approval or admiration from our peers is I think a widely accepted theory. The broader theory that being “good” is analogous to being “cool” is based on seeing the pressures we face to “fit in” with our peers and the joy and satisfaction we feel at accomplishing that. We see that this motivational mechanism drives us to behave in ways that would not otherwise provide any utility. For example: dressing a certain way or talking a certain way. Other than the social inclusion gained by those behaviors, there does not appear to be any utility to being “cool.” And so this type of motivational mechanism could serve to explain why I feel obligated to be kind and compassionate regardless of returned affection. If you think about it, the parallels between our moral behaviors and our ego-driven behaviors are there.

Any questions?

85

Before I read any of that, who are you quoting in the red?

86

me! lol

87

Noting the “human condition” is like noting “mankind” [or even “God”]. It is just the manner in which “I” and “we” seek to measure ourselves [or compare and contrast ourselves] as bona fide members of the “human race”.

I just root the individual point of view – vis a vis “is/ought” – in dasein. Then we invariably get into the sort of narratives Camus and Sartre exchanged. Or, perhaps, Marx and Rand? And that basically revolves around the manner in which we either emphasize “I” or “we”.

But only way of, among others, Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich.

Or, maybe, Bianco Luno? :wink:

88

The is-ought is my favorite topic, and ILP is the forum I’ve belonged to the longest (which is still in existence), so perhaps I am biased, but this is the most fascinating discussion in which I have had the honor to participate. I am deeply indebted. Thankyou to all of you.

I am going to attempt to summarize all the positions thus far put forward, sometimes having to guess at what you voted (or would have voted, had you voted). Please correct me if I am wrong about my guesses. And please vote if you are one of the participants that hasn’t voted yet, unless you are undecided (or unless you consider the two poll options ‘themselves’ to be a false dichotomy…though I fail to see what other option there could be outside of “true distinction” and “false distinction”…). Edit: What I didn’t do is change how you claimed you voted, even if your supporting arguments reflected the opposite vote. Instead I just asked follow-up questions.

Thus far, with some questions for each of you…none of them are yes or no questions, btw, even if you ‘could’ just answer them with a simple yes or no…please give well thought-out answers…:

Only Humean: True distinction, or you’re not Only Humean. :0) By the way, your last link says Hume is a motive-utilitarian (p.173). Perhaps you were already aware of that and I misjudged your intention in posting those links.
Questions: Maybe being, doing/intending, and results…need not be considered entirely distinct? Maybe there is an ultimate end behind all worthy being and doing? Do you think there is a true ought that does not violate the is-ought, or do you think the is-ought removes values from the realm of knowledge?

Film Snob: False dichotomy. Nietzsche argued Hume away. Ises are a different ball in a different game from oughts. You interpreted buffalo’s/chester’s position as “because God told us” and later said that oughts are orders. You dis Ierrellus’ [correction: I believe it was actually iambiguous’] genealogy in favor of Nietzsche’s, but I ask the same question you asked of Ierrullus’ [iambiguous’] and some other questions…
Questions: Didn’t Nietzsche only disagree with Hume’s psychology, not his is-ought? Doesn’t it seem that both Nietzsche and Hume agree that oughts are not “derived” rationally and that where they disagree is (perhaps) actually on their separate genealogies of how oughts come into play (neither of which really matters to this discussion)? Can you please explain more why you chose false dichotomy, rather than true distinction? Do you think there can be “true” oughts/orders? In other words, do you think true oughts can be derived from orders? Now consider my last question, but this time the orders are God’s. If your answers to the last two questions are different, – why? Is it possible for God’s orders to be in line with his nature, creating nothing new? Now consider my last question, but this time the orders are of human origin. If any part of your answers to these last two questions are identical, – why?

Ierrellus: False dichotomy. Oughts come from somewhere (ises).
Granted: In order to be true, a belief/ought must correspond to reality (to an “is”)…but…
Questions: True or false: Whether or not an “ought”, or any other belief, is true (corresponds ontologically to an “is”) has no bearing on whether it is justified (epistemologically with evidence and/or reasoning), and whether or not it (ought/belief) is justified (epistemologically with evidence and/or reasoning) has no bearing on whether or not it is true (corresponds ontologically to an “is”). If this is true, can’t a belief/ought “come from somewhere” without violating the is-ought (ontology-epistemology) distinction? Also see my questions to Chester.

Buffalo: You seem to switch positions. At first you seem to vote true distinction (only a problem if no personal God) but then you seem to switch to false dichotomy (if not from an ‘is’ then from what? …Hume’s extreme skepticism only argued ‘around’).
Questions: Same as questions to Ierrellus. Add to it these: Do you agree with Film Snob’s answering for you and Chester (I group you and Chester together in this) when he said “because God told us” (divine command theory: do you believe it?)? Do you think that the is-ought is a false dichotomy and that divine command theory gets “around” it? See questions to Film Snob regarding orders.

fuse: True distinction. Don’t blow it off too easily.
Questions: (Ones you ask.) What are objectified morals? How does one know they are true oughts (both corresponding ontologically, and justified epistemologically)? (Excellent questions.) Edit: I forgot to clarify that an “epistemology” is how we justify what we think we know…what we think corresponds, or has genuine “ontology” (exists, is metaphysically true/real)…this applies equally to what we think is truly moral. My questions to Ierrellus and Chester may make things even more clear.

Chester: True distinction. The is-ought is only a problem if there is no (later: personal) God. To conclude there are true oughts (“objectified morals”), and a God (whose nature and/or commands) to which they correspond, is a faith-wager, as is its alternative (neither alternative can be known with certainty). Objectified morals are not dependent on us and are part of the substance of the world.
Questions: Do you think true oughts are ‘true’ because they correspond to a personal God? If yes, do you know why this does not violate the is-ought distinction? Do you think true oughts are ‘justified’ because they correspond to a personal God? If yes, how does this not violate the is-ought distinction (see questions to Ierrellus)? Do you believe divine command theory? If so, see questions to Buffalo and Film Snob regarding orders.

iambiguous: False dichotomy. Oughts are derived from the basic, fundamental reality of human interaction.
Film Snob responds to you: Was that an absolute “up there” truth I just heard you claim? On what scientific basis is your genealogy correct?
Buffalo responds to you: Those are precisely the ISes that Hume was talking about (hear, hear!).
Mo interjects: Oh snap son! (funny!)
You divert: So many conflicting goods, therefore no Objective (which you agree with James to define as “most rational, most ethical”) Good. Oughts are impermanent ises. IS there another way I OUGHT to think about them?
James S Saint gets diverted: excellent question and phrasing
Film Snob redirects: I “command” you to think of them in the right way (see my questions to him).
My turn: See my questions to Ierrellus and Chester.

James S Saint: I found it hard to pin down your position. You said the poll options were a false dichotomy. You said to think past Hume to a better understanding and that only those who refuse or are incapable of thinking worship the words of others.
Questions: I’ll make an exception for you James. If you had a write-in option, how would you phrase it as briefly as the options presented? What other option is there outside of “true distinction” and “false distinction”? Do you think there is a mid-way between true and false? You said fuse’s question (what are objectified morals and how do we know they are true and justified?) was a good question, and fuse voted true distinction. Why don’t you? You answered Buffalo’s “If not from IS, then from what?” with “rationality”. Buffalo’s question reflects that he would vote “false dichotomy”. Why don’t you? And, finally, do you use that word-worship line to justify plagiarism, or do you give credit where credit is due? I agree with your basic sentiment, though. We must think for ourselves. And I don’t think we should think for ourselves merely because you said we should…nor do I think you are the first to point it out…or that you fail to think for yourself, or that you worship the first thinkers of that thought, by agreeing with it. It stands on its own. If we knew who first thought it, we’d want to give him/her credit, wouldn’t we? That said—if you have no good answers for any of my questions so far, how do you vote (unless you refuse or are incapable of thinking to a conclusion–which I know you do/are not)? On what you said about ontology/epistemology, see my related questions to Ierrellus and Chester. You come across as an anti-realist, which to me always comes across as saying truth can be made up, which can be taken as seriously as fiction.

On Hume vs. Nietzsche…on egoistic/unegoistic…aristocracy/herd…yadda yadda yadda…we need not even go there. An ought, to be true, must describe something, not just prescribe it for the rest of us who are not described by it. Do you know of a single individual or group who is described by an ought (any ought)—in other words, their character, thoughts, behaviors, et cetera, all fulfill that ought, all of the time? I can think of one possibility. The genealogies you’ve mentioned thus far are not describing oughts which correspond to anything…they are describing constructs…and they fail to even take a position on the is-ought distinction. It’s time to nut up or shut up. Just felt like saying that.

Russian Tank and Fixed Cross…I didn’t really know how to respond to you two. How did you vote, and why?

Thanks again, all. :slight_smile:

Edit: I think Film Snob dissed iambiguous’ genealogy, not Ierrellus’. Pardon.

89

It takes an is to envisage an ought.

90

My god, that was beautiful. I’ll be back with more answers, questions, disses and the unexpected.

91

You’re not claiming any ought is true (envisage is synonymous with create, right?) therefore you are not violating the is-ought…so why are you trying to get around it by calling the is-ought a false dichotomy? Or, do you think made up rules are true (fiction is true)? What are your reasons for believing the is-ought is a false dichotomy? See my other questions to you above.

92

Hey Ichthus,

Sorry, i went off topic… just wanted to argue with Nietzsche. As for Is-ought… There is a use of the term “ought” that can be said to be true or “objective” (existing seperate from our subjective perspectives.)

When using “ought” in prescriptions, I think you can have true oughts. Such as: “In order to boil water, you should (or ought) heat the water 100 degree Celsius.” And we can go on to argue about just how true that statement is, because the temperature needed to boil water actually depends on atmospheric pressure, so we can conclude that this prescription is incomplete.

So, when used within the context of achieving a specific goal, we can evaluate the truth of the ought statement based on its effectiveness. And these types of prescriptions can theoretically be relevant given any goal, as long as it is within the realm of possibility. Such as: “In order to build a society with the highest standard of living (given an agreed upon, objective measurement of “standard of living”) you need to do A, B and C.” In this way we can create prescriptions that answer many questions traditionally considered within the realm of morality. Such as how to treat one another (though these prescriptions will never be universal, as many moralists would hope, but rather only relevant within the context of achieving a particular goal.)

On the other hand, anytime an “ought” statement is claimed to exist independently of a context specifying which goal that ought statement is meant to achieve, this becomes non-sense.

93

The argument is, precicely, that the english psychologists (including Hume) looked at the “is” and tried to derive an “ought” from it.

Their big mistake, of course, was that “ought” is not objective, like “is,” but subjective, like “obey.”

“Ought” is literally whatever the person prescribing wants it to be.

EDIT

Of course, Hume was notable for being scientific even in his study of “ought.” However, he was a purely theoretical scientist, and made no effort to prove his assertion that “ought” comes straight from “benefit to others.”

Nietzsche is better, because he links his theories of “ought” to recorded history.

94

Okay:

In what particular context? Pertaining to what in particular out in what particular world"? If you honestly believe you ought to think or feel or behave in a particular way in a particular context then that is true for you. But that does not make it true for everyone else. Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate that it is true for all. Such beliefs/oughts are derived from and then justified by the perspective of dasein.

Or, in any event, as “I” see it here and now.

Chester believes in God. And that puts the sort of spin on things I am no longer able to share. Meaning that at one time I did believe in God myself. But not anymore.

If God does exist and is omniscient “is/ought” can be anchored to that. If No God, then this distinction is rooted in dasein. A point of view in other words that is always subject to change existentially.

95

Other than to compliment you on maintaining your order of thought and analysis… geeez… where to begin?

I know… at the very beginning of this thread… the poll itself.

First thing to get straight when proposing a poll is that all of reality comes in 3s;

  1. what something is,
  2. what that something isn’t, and
  3. the border between.

Take this poll;
A ripe banana is,
A) red
B) blue

“If you can’t decide then just put down the best/closest answer.”

I couldn’t count how many times I beatup my psychology professors for proposing and testing based on such questions.
[i]"Is abnormal behavior due to;
A) environmental affectance
B) genealogical construct?

If you can’t decide then just put down the best/closest answer."[/i]

After a bit of a terse lecture from me, some would reply, “well I won’t strike the question from the exam because everyone had to face the same dilemma and I grade on a curve.”. Trying to explain the insanity of that response to a professor of insanity was more than I wanted to have to deal with.

In the first question, the truth is “neither”. In the second question, the truth is “both”. Often the truth will be something like, “does not apply or - N/A”, or sometimes, “irrational statements involved”, or “I don’t understand the question”, or even, “I don’t know”.

Point being;
NEVER, EVER take a poll that merely suggests an (A) or a (B), regardless of how totally certain you are that it must be answered by one or the other.

Case in point;

What do you think the word “epistemology” means? Hopefully to avoid and argument;

Do you see anything in there even implied to be relevant to “justified ought”, values, or morals? Epistemology is about the construct of knowledge rather than ontology, the construct of reality.

My eyes were already rolling and I had even gotten to the second option in the poll yet.

Second option;

“keeping values outside the realm of truth”???
Ensuring that values are not true?
Naahh.. couldn’t be. Must be trying to say, “values independent of truth”.
But “epistemology”?
And what can this have to do with a dichotomy?

So at this point, I am thinking that okay, this guy is intending to ask some question relating to “justified ought”, “values”, “truth”, and something related to Hume’s “Is-Ought” thesis (gleamed from the title of the thread)… and then… some kind of proposed “dichotomy”. “My brain is tired already and I haven’t even got to his question.”

Okay, first line of the OP;

First, the Is-Ought doesn’t have anything to do with epistemology (and at this point tempted to just forget this and see if there is anything interesting to read on another thread - there wasn’t… sigh).

Second, this guy has just proposed a poll asking about a false dichotomy as though asking if it really were a false dichotomy and yet in his first line, he states that it actually is a false dichotomy (this is the point on an exam, you immediately know what to put down as your answer regardless of any truth). So okay, the author of this “poll” believes the Is-Ought is a false dichotomy and is going to ask if we agree… maybe? Or maybe due to some kind of epistemological concern something will straighten all this out… But where is “values outside the realm of truth” going to come into play. I’m thinking…“I wonder if this is really one of those sneaky Schartzgard frustration tests”. Continuing..

Yeah right. Like I want to get more of my fill of THIS… yummy. :unamused:

Okay, so now we know. He wants to know if we think the Is-Ought is a false dichotomy, as suspected despite his assertion that it was as though there was no question about it, “Is this false dichotomy a genuine distinction?”

But wait. Didn’t I just read, emm.. what was it..

Emmm.. hold it, what was the question again?
“is the is-ought is a genuine distinction or a false dichotomy?”
Umm.. didn’t he just say that it isn’t a case of one or the other?

Explained above.. ALWAYS provide an “N/A” option…just in case someone is awake.

So now we are back to either true or false “distinction” rather than “false dichotomy”?
Didn’t you write, “One can rightly reject the false dichotomy without rejecting the is-ought distinction.”?

There is a distinction. It is not a dichotomy. Is the word “dichotomy” the problem here?

The Is-Ought is a distinction. It is NOT a dichotomy. There is no contradiction involved.

So, “what the hell is this guy really asking? Does he even know?”

Were you polling to see if we think the Is-Ought is a dichotomy?
If so, my answer is “No. It is not a dichotomy… Neither a true one nor a false one”.

Were you asking if we think that we can maintain or justify the distinction between an “Is” and an “Ought”?
If so, then my answer is, “Depends on who’s trying to. Unfortunately, it takes thought, but can certainly be done.”

Or maybe you had intended some other question entirely.
In which case my answer is this post.

And at this point, I have only gotten to the second line of your new questions to me.

ALWAYS.
The false notion that Logic requires only a true or a false is itself FALSE, a fallacy.
Logic NEVER claimed that there is only truth or fiction within the same thought.
That was merely an injected strawman so that certain people could try to claim how foolish logic is, by them displaying an irrational statement and showing that it was neither true nor false; “This statement is false.”

I’ll give you credit for that statement but I have to say that I have absolutely no idea what it meant. Was it intended to exemplify the issue prior of irrational statements? Or if not, what does plagiarism have to do with anything? Surely you don’t think that a man can’t discuss the issues of values versus ontology without specifying everyone in history that has ever written anything about it… Or emm.. do you?

How about figure out what credit or blame the guy deserves FIRST by figuring out the real truth on the matter beyond whatever he had said, THEN go back and give credit where it is due. Anything wrong with that? Is there some reason one must give credit to EVERYONE on the planet for all they have said BEFORE you even know what they really meant or, more importantly, if it was even SANE?

How can you justify giving credit when you don’t know the truth?
How about find the truth first, THEN you can sit in judgment of the world and dole out credits and curses.

Realize that THE MOST COMMON criticism that is given, throughout the entire internet, is the one that most reflects the giver of it.

Get your words straight. Use a dictionary. Ask a rational question. Allow for a “none of the above” option on your polls.

96

I never voted because the second option was not clear. I agree with Sam Harris that the IS/OUGHT distinction is “trick of language” and further would say that, in practice, there is no alternative but to derive “ought” from “is”. Let’s also be clear here that when we talk about “ought” we are talking about moral imperatives and not some other more trivial usage of “ought”.

IF you can’t get ought from is, how do you get ought? One of the few alternatives is the “Devine Command” and of course this opens that can of worms about is it good because God wills it? In which case good is arbitrary. Or is it good becasue there is an objective good beyond God? In which case God is irrelevant.

I am still not sure what is meant by a “false dichotomy”, but if you are asking if I think Hume is wrong, I would say yes (as per above). And “Devine Command” is absurd.

97

Ought is contextual - dependent on your ends. If you want an objective ought, you need an objective aim. I’m not aware of any such thing or even what such a thing would mean; given its potential for abuse, I’m suspicious of those who offer one.

What if you can get an ought from is, and someone else can get an opposite ought from is? That seems to be the common state of affairs. Most people can give reasons for their oughts, for sure, and (most of us would agree) we all share the same external reality. We can agree on high tide, and how many moons orbit the earth, and the height of Everest. So why should otherwise highly intelligent and educated people find it at all difficult to agree on how freedom weighs against security, or when life begins, or on the rights of individuals vs. the collective?

“Derive” implies a one-way mapping, of the mathematical/logical form; a content-free, value-free algorithm.

98

Ah man. This brings a tear to my eye.

I love this bar. :slight_smile:

I’ll be back Saturday, Lord-willing.

99

I wrote most of this last night but didn’t want to consider it ‘done’ when I was tired, so waited to post it until today. Glad I did.

Okay. I’m going to keep things in the same order and only go on tangents if essential. Still haven’t heard back from Ierrellus, fuse, Chester, or fixed cross, so I’m reposting my questions to them into this reply.

Only Humean: True distinction, but…
Questions: Are you now voting false distinction/dichotomy (implied when you said “What if you can get an ought from is, and someone else can get an opposite ought from is? That seems to be the common state of affairs”—but perhaps…probably…you were just pointing out what people ‘think’ they are doing)? You and Russian Tank seem to agree in that you use the terms ‘aim’ and ‘ends’ (skeptical/suspicious of ‘offered’ objective ones), and he uses the term ‘particular goal’. Questions for both: do either of you rule out the possibility of an objective aim/end/goal (if so, why? If not, can we justify a goal by pointing back to the way things are?)?

Film Snob: False dichotomy.
Questions: If you are following a true ought, are you obeying something objective? Do you rule out the possibility of an objective moral law?
Everyone offering a genealogy: So there is a history of man’s understanding of Ethics (it is up for debate whose history is more accurate). There is also a history of man’s understanding of Physics (several cosmologies up for debate). How does there being a history of how our understanding develops…rule out the possibility of objective truth in either field? We have made leaps and bounds of progress in Physics because the truths and errors are real, rather than constructs—why can’t we make progress in Ethics (or, rather, make ‘changes’ in Ethics…since progress doesn’t happen unless there is a true ought to which we are progressing) without folks assuming its because the oughts and errors are constructs? And this doesn’t even touch on the is-ought. If you apply the is-ought to Physics, it means we don’t say “My theory corresponds to reality—therefore, you ought to believe my theory,” or, to reverse it, “You ought to believe my theory—therefore, my theory corresponds to reality.” The is-ought applies in both Ethics and Physics. Only anti-realist folks who think truth can be fiction, who completely disregard the fact that scientific progress makes no sense unless we are really wrong about our errors and really right about at least ‘some’ of our new understandings, would dismiss the is-ought as a false dichotomy. Talking about how we came to understand the earth orbits the sun does nothing to answer whether we think we’re collectively/individually constructing/justifying its correspondence (committing the ought-is fallacy of anti-realism) or whether we think it corresponds or not despite our (lack of) justifications of it (committing no fallacy). If we tried to say, “The earth orbits the sun, therefore we have good reasons for believing it orbits the sun,” we would be committing the is-ought fallacy. And talking about how we came to understand the Golden Rule does nothing to answer whether we think we’re collectively/individually constructing/justifying its correspondence (committing the ought-is fallacy) or whether we think it corresponds or not despite our justifications of it (committing no fallacy). If we tried to say, “The Golden Rule corresponds to, or describes, God (God exists, so the Golden Rule exists), therefore we have good reason to follow the Golden Rule” we would be committing the is-ought fallacy. That we must ‘learn’ that the earth orbits the sun, or that (arguably) the Golden Rule is true and should be followed…does not imply our learning actually constructs those truths. Truth cannot be made up.

Ierrellus: False dichotomy. Oughts come from somewhere (ises).
Granted: In order to be true, a belief/ought must correspond to reality (to an “is”)…but…
Questions: True or false: Whether or not an “ought”, or any other belief, is true (corresponds ontologically to an “is”) has no bearing on whether it is justified (epistemologically with evidence and/or reasoning), and whether or not it (ought/belief) is justified (epistemologically with evidence and/or reasoning) has no bearing on whether or not it is true (corresponds ontologically to an “is”). If this is true, can’t a belief/ought “come from somewhere” without violating the is-ought (ontology-epistemology) distinction? Also see my questions to Chester.

Buffalo: False dichotomy (“is-ought distinction trick of language”).
Answers you are free to challenge: You ask how we get oughts. How we justify them is with reasoning and evidence. How we ground them is, of course, in an Is (actually…’we’ don’t ground anything…reality does that for us). As with everything else, we must evaluate the reasoning and evidence and go with the strongest theory. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma resolved by the reality (if true) that God’s commands are in accordance with his nature and so do not create anything arbitrary or separate from himself. If his nature is “that to which a true ought corresponds” or “that which a true ought describes” it would mean the ought to which his commands correspond is not “above” him—it “is” him. I mentioned a link to some Euthyphro articles earlier in the discussion. All of that only touches the issue of ontology, or grounding. If you want to talk evidence and reasoning, start with an Ethics course. The most interesting thing I found out from my course was … the Golden Rule comes up when discussing every theory, but … it is not given its own chapter. My work in progress corrects that error.

fuse: True distinction. Don’t blow it off too easily.
Questions: (Ones you ask.) What are objectified morals? How does one know they are true oughts (both corresponding ontologically, and justified epistemologically)? (Excellent questions.) Edit: I forgot to clarify that an “epistemology” is how we justify what we think we know…what we think corresponds, or has genuine “ontology” (exists, is metaphysically true/real)…this applies equally to what we think is truly moral. My questions to Ierrellus and Chester may make things even more clear. I explain the epistemology thing further to James below. Also see my answer to Buffalo directly above.

Chester: True distinction. The is-ought is only a problem if there is no (later: personal) God. To conclude there are true oughts (“objectified morals”), and a God (whose nature and/or commands) to which they correspond, is a faith-wager, as is its alternative (neither alternative can be known with certainty). Objectified morals are not dependent on us and are part of the substance of the world.
Questions: Do you think true oughts are ‘true’ because they correspond to a personal God? If yes, do you know why this does not violate the is-ought distinction? Do you think true oughts are ‘justified’ because they correspond to a personal God? If yes, how does this not violate the is-ought distinction (see questions to Ierrellus)? Do you believe divine command theory? If so, see questions to Buffalo and Film Snob (from my last long post) regarding orders.

Iambiguous: False dichotomy.
Questions: When you say “true for you” you don’t mean “true TO you”, so to what being is it true? Note that saying “is/ought” is not the same as saying “true ought” (I agree it is possible for the latter to be grounded in God, though, due to the is-ought fallacy, not justified by his existence). If dasein is always subject to change, how can it ever really be “that to which a true ought corresponds” or “that which the true ought always describes”?

James S Saint: True distinction (though not a contradiction–agreed).
Questions: I’m going on this tangent cuz discourse is impossible if we don’t get this squared first. What difference does it make if you choose between 2 or 20? In the end, the one(s) you select is/are “true” and the one(s) you reject is/are “false” (at least in your mind) – so regardless of the number of options, picking an answer demonstrates the true-false distinction (2 options right there—but, really…only ONE of them will abide…).

Now for something practical…what do I do with a poll like this:
A) NEVER only two possible answers (you would pick this one)
B) Sometimes only two possible answers (I would pick this one)
–which one, between the two, is right—is there a middle way? “I don’t know” is not a middle way.

Or how about this poll:
A) Is-ought is true (not false) distinction (we would pick this one)
B) Is-ought is a false (not true) distinction (some others in this thread would pick this one)
–which one, between the two, is right—is there a middle way? “I don’t know” is not a middle way.

Regarding logic, I begin to get the feeling you are joking the whole time. A=A…law of identity. Just the beginning.

My point with the credit thing is that giving credit where it is due (as far as one is aware) does not automatically equate to worship or lack of proper critique.

On the epistemology misunderstanding (fuse had it, too)… Dictionaries can’t tell you everything, so here’s the short and skinny: The is-ought distinction says that whether or not a belief/ought is true (has ontology) says nothing about whether or not it is justified (epistemologically) [we can believe (morally) true things for the wrong reasons], and, reversing it, whether or not a belief/ought is justified (epistemologically) says nothing about whether or not it is true (has ontology) [we can have great reasons for (moral) beliefs that correspond to nothing]. Justified = ought. True = is. Plato was the first to point out that our beliefs need to be “both” justified “and” true—to be one is not to be the other, they are not the same. Hume apparently agrees regarding ought-beliefs.

“One can rightly reject the false dichotomy without rejecting the is-ought distinction.”

The reason for this thread: Yes. There are those who dismiss the is-ought as a false dichotomy because they believe some values (oughts) are true (ises) and that the is-ought distinction undermines this. I do not think the is-ought distinction necessarily keeps values (oughts) outside the realm of truth (ises). It allows for true oughts. What it does not allow for, is justifying those oughts by mere ontology or status quo, or (in reverse) establishing ontology by their justification. Good reasons and evidence are required for justification, and justification does not produce correspondence to reality. We must have both.

Russian Tank: Still not sure what you vote.
Questions: Can we justify a goal by pointing back to the way things are (if you say ‘no’ then you vote ‘for’ Hume’s is-ought distinction and agree the is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy)? Do you rule out the possibility of an objective/universal goal/aim/end (if so, why?) (also asked of Only Humean, who uses the terms ‘aim’ and ‘ends’ (and is skeptical/suspicious of ‘offered’ objective ones))?

Fixed Cross…still waiting for you to weigh in.

True Distinction: Only Humean, fuse, Chester, James S Saint
False Distinction/Dichotomy: Film Snob, Ierrellus, Buffalo, Iambiguous
No vote yet: Russian Tank, Fixed Cross

So far, it’s 4-4.

Lastly…the most important questions for those who vote false distinction (so far Film Snob, Ierrellus, Buffalo, Iambiguous)… If you are one who believes some oughts are true, is that why you dismiss the is-ought as a false dichotomy and do not consider the is-ought fallacy a true fallacy? If so, see “The reason for this thread” in my reply to James. If you are one who does not think some oughts are true, why do you dismiss the is-ought distinction, considering the “is” part is about truth?

Let me know if you change your vote. The poll does allow for that.

100

False false dichotomy.