Imagine thinking an ‘ought’ would come from anything other than some ‘is’.
Hume was a deceiver. Like much of the “philosophers” were and still are.
1 Like
It’s a good distinction. You need them both (well, all three: facts, values, oughts) separately & aligned.
.
Smoke and mirrors philosophy, the heinous kind… the West needs to stop playing into it.
@MagsJ (& @HumAnIze) do not derail this thread. This is an important discussion and you will stay on topic or exit the topic. Mute it, even. @Carleas & @Flannel_Jesus will you please moderate this? Thank you.
“Umm oughts don’t come from is, because they like come from um something other than reality, like for no reason, like um… nothing is actually connected causally it just LOOKS LIKE it is, but really umm no it’s not, like nothing causes anything else and also morality just happens bbut it’s not caused by anything in reality and there’s like no reasons for any moral ought its like arbitrary and not based in anything real lawl”
-Hume
Cool story bro.
1 Like
We can agree there is a distinction between being, doing, and valuing, and that they should be in alignment, without agreeing (with Adler, Hume, & Moore, etc.) there is no way to define them.
I mean. Einstein, Dirac, & Planck did it. Every culture in history did it. Every parent raises their kids according to it without even trying. We know it, and we show we know it w/o even articulating it.
We just also… thumb our nose at it. Why else do we jump out of perfectly good airplanes?
Lol. We.
Not me/I.
Last bit was a joke. Sky diving isn’t evil.
Kayaking is.
“is vs. ought” is a valid distinction but not necessarily a strict dichotomy. There are meaningful differences between describing the world and prescribing actions, but how rigidly these are separated depends on the philosophical perspective one adopts.
Is, ought, and value are just…
ontology (being, truth, ontic grounding), justification (epistemology, action, method), and aesthetics (value, teleology, meaning)
They each have to stand on their own feet, but can only do that as a unity.
Would person=person if there were no actual
persons (IS) who behave (OUGHT) toward every person as they would want (VALUE) other persons to behave toward them?
@Ecmandu knows the answer & denies it on pain of (ir)rationality.
Is A.J. Ayer’s “verification” requirement for statements that make sense (7 minutes in; if we accept as-is) satisfied by the “demonstration/justification of correspondence to reality” evident in the historical data/witness supporting Jesus’ life, death, and … dare I say … resurrection (seeing as he fulfilled the sum of the Law & Prophets, the golden rule, in switching perspectives with us on the cross)?
Obv I would answer yes.
Fixed, Aries, @Jakob … thoughts?^
OUGHT: Strong evidence, verification, or justification (oughtness) to believe/value that there is correspondence to reality:
VALUE: — doesn’t always result in belief/value (more factors influence belief/values than reasons/evidence)
IS: —doesn’t guarantee truth/correspondence (unless deductive)
OUGHT: Weak/opposing evidence, verification, or justification (oughtness) to believe/value that there is correspondence to reality:
VALUE: — does not mean belief/value is unjustified, if:
IS: — does not mean correspondence is not real (because any opposing reasons are not deductive arguments or conclusive)
One problem with A.J. Ayer’s “verification” requirement is … sometimes we “know” (believe/VALUE what IS true) without being able to articulate or show (justify/OUGHT) how it is we know. All our now-confirmed/-verified knowledge (if controlling for confirmation bias lol) about the world that started in mere hypothesis is a kind of “properly basic” knowledge. You don’t know it isn’t until its alternative is verified. Also: If verification rules out deductive arguments, that’s ridiculous.
And HOW FREAKING IRONIC!!! that verification or justification or OUGHTNESS of belief/value… is used against itself as “not making sense”… because it conflates oughts/values …
Whew! What a trip!!!