If you are following a true ought, then you are following true orders. I suppose orders can be objective…
Film Snob…so, you vote true distinction?
False dichotomy, considering my understanding of dichotomy is that of Heraclitus: seperate ends of the same thing.
Why did you say “false false dichotomy” earlier?
The implication I meant is towards a true distinction there - but I don’t deny that people support their oughts with all sorts of ares.
I don’t rule out the possibility, I have no idea what such a thing would be. I’m ignostic on the matter, rather than agnostic.
I thought you were saying I was proposing a false dichotomy, so I suggested that your accusation of false dichotomy was false. I now gather that it was probably just a reminder of the option I had chosen.
If you believe that God does exist then from your point of view God does exist.
If you believe abortion is immoral then from your point of view abortion is immoral.
The distinction I make is between believing something is true that is in fact true for everyone and believing something is true that in fact others believe is false.
And then lacking the capacity to determine if it is either one or the other.
I think like this:
“Abortion kills the unborn”
And no matter how much I change from day to day as dasein this stays true. In this case it is true by definition.
“Abortion is immoral”
This is always “true” only from a point of view rooted in dasein.
I’m not even sure what you mean by a “true ought”. That is an oxymoron to me. At best one can say [of me] “it is true that iambiguous believes abortion ought to be legal.”
But it is also true that iambiguous believes that abortion is the killing of a human being. Is iambiguous then saying it ought to be legal to kill human beings?
In this case, yes. And that is because if abortion is made illegal we would be punishing women by forcing them to give birth against their will. And forcing women to give birth would make them second class citizens in a world where men are never faced with this choice.
Speaking only for myself, I do not believe that any oughts are true. But only if by this one means it is our duty and obligation as rational and moral human beings to behave in one way rather than another.
Obviously, however, one ought to behave in particular ways if they wish to accomplish a particular goal. But whether they ought to choose one goal over another is always problematic.
Dang. Lost my reply. If an ought is true it is true regardless of belief or justification. In order for your ought to be true there must exist a being who never forces women to give birth and never treats them as second class citizens, bare minimum. If such a person exists, there still may be insurmountable flaws in your justification. If that person doesn’t exist, no amount of justification will change that.
For belief: only if there’s no distinction between ought and is (and we assume realism 
)
For justification: you’re entitled to hold and act on completely unjustifiable beliefs as long as they’re true?
What is this I don’t even. Where did this come from? Surely if they are not distinguishable, such a being only ought to exist, bare minimum?
I have good news, though. I never force women to give birth, and I always treat them as first class citizens. It’s me. Look after me, I’m a precious resource
Not sure what you mean.
If there is someone who never forces women to give birth what happens when he or she comes upon someone who insist that aborting the unborn is immoral? And, further, that someone who does abort the unborn is engaging in the killing of innocent human life. And, thus, should be charged with premeditated first degree murder in a court of law. And, then, if found guilty should be sent to prison for a very long time. Or even executed.
I don’t see how an “ought” can be constructed here without bringing pain and suffering [or even death] to one side or the other in this particular “conflicting goods” context.
Has some witch turned you all into crickets?
Something I am thinking is Hume’s skepticism forbade him to count moral reasoning as ending in knowledge and so he appealed to what in my vocabulary I call “moral hunger”–how we all know the good, sometimes without knowing we know. I am not ‘certain’ Hume would agree with me on that, or how he would answer “For what good being in reality do we all hunger?” I don’t think he greatly reflected on the is-ought’s implications.
@iambiguous Abortion kills a person (should assume it, since conception is how every person begins/is), and delivers them dead—or alive, to be sold as parts to the highest bidding researcher. Better to deliver them alive and have them adopted to the MANY waiting for them, than violate person=person on pain of (ir)rationality, no?
Only true if there is a person who never violates personhood…always respects consent.
Just like an unjust law is no law at all, an uninformed consent is no consent at all. No true parent would ever consent to their child’s suicide.
What true parent consents on behalf of their child to kill them or mangle their (intersex) sex organs rather than let them grow into adulthood before they can consent on their own to donate their organs to research or cosmetically change their external appearance (preferably after at least being given the possibility of living a full life, and healing any early childhood traumas related to gender)? What true doctor would do such harm?
Circumcision (male, at least) doesn’t kill or mangle anyone, just in case that crossed anyone’s mind. And it avoids conditions like phimosis. Just saying. Not that it is a requirement unless you’re a “practicing” yada yada. P.s. Jesus was a physical adult when he laid down his life.
The way I phrased the poll in the OP shows I didn’t have the is—ought—value triad yet…
…even though I had be—do—end.
And is-ought-belief. Heh.
@PZR / @Pedro_I_Rengel is that you (Pezerocles)?
What if we start at person=person, and only divert on pain of (ir)rationality?
Kudos for the well-formulated question. If we go by received wisdom, it ain’t a false dichotomy. Per some sources Hume “devotes” only a short paragraph (or two) to the “problem”. No one then knows what Hume actually meant except that HE found it puzzling how an ought followed from an is. Does Hume cite specific instances where this kinda error was committed? I don’t recall having read that he did.
Adler said same, but considers it a form of modal fallacy.
Thing is. He & others* conflate values and duties. The right (pious) thing is the right thing whether you value/prioritize (love) it or not.
*One example:
nm. Stumbled upon the answer: