Can we from “is” statements get a Moral Ought?
Dr. Robert S. Hartman showed how it can be done, and a clear explanation of the steps in the process was offered by Dr. Katz in his ETHICS; A College Course. See the link below.} As you know, there are ‘moral oughts’ and there are ‘non-moral oughts.’ If one says to a slobby little kid: “You ought to clean your room!” it might not be clear as to whether this is a moral proposition, or it is not. Say, for example, though, that the ought-proposition is clearly a moral one, such as: “Jim ought to be authentic and sincere.” Substitute that, if you wish a more-ethical context, for the non-moral propositions used as examples in the very-logical discussion on pages 41-45, HERE:
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf
The question has come up: How do we get from “is” statements to a moral imperative? Or conversely, can a moral imperative, containing an “ought”, be reduced to a series of “is” statements?
What follows is an an analysis, for which the polymath genius, R. S. Hartman, gets the credit. It will display the equivalence between a concept that is a moral imperative and a concept that is in the indicative mode:
"Jim, you ought to be considerate of others!”
The above moral imperative equals by definition: “Given who you are, Jim, and given what ‘being considerate to others’ is, it is better for you to be considerate of others than not to be, or to engage in some other behavior with regard to others.”
To phrase it another way [- and also to explain what the relation “better for” means - think of Venn Diagrams now -] it is the case that ‘being considerate to others’ overlaps more with the meaning of ‘Jim’ (viz., who he is, as he himself and as those who know him best would agree) than some other way of responding, such as, say, ‘to be mean to others’ or ‘to be indifferent to them’ would overlap.
Q.E.D.
So, you see, it can be done.
It may help to clear up any misunderstanding or confusion if I add a further explanation.
By the definition of “Ethics” in the new paradigm offered here, one is being ethical when one’s perspective on an individual (or group of individuals) is to see that individual as of uncountably-high value, as well as of continuous value.
The valuer, in this process, forms a continuum with the one who is being valued. [size=88][The mathematical power of the continuum has the cardinality aleph-one.}[/size] which in practice amounts to giving full attention, or getting involved with the person valued that highly. .Technically, it is called Intrinsic valuation. When you Intrinsically value a person, you are being ethical.
Earlier the phrase “given who Jim is” was stated; and this might lead to a question as to “Who is Jim?” In light of the very definition of Ethics offered above, Jim does not have a definable nor fixed set of characteristics !! Jim may behave idiosyncratically or spontaneously, as may you or I. Jim has infinite meaning and infinite possibilities …from this perspective, subject to the limits set by nature and the causal chains that led up to, and resulted in, Jim. Jim can choose what he is. He is not pre-defined by any system except that of the nature of the universe.
Note, though, that I may utter "Frank ought to think deeply,” when, as a matter of fact, he already does. The same goes for Jim, who is ordinarilly considerate of other. I could rationally assert that he ought to be what he already is.
It is also relevant to note that the value copula “ought” and also “should” denote a gap:
It is a gap between the actual and an ideal state of affairs. Let’s say, for example, that the claim is: “Jim ought to be considerate”
Those terms, ‘ought’ and ‘should’ suggest that Jim is now inconsiderate; and when the gap is closed Jim will indeed be considerate.
Philosophers and Philosophy students ought to accept and embrace the best Ethical Theory that is out there.
Could that theory be the one that teaches us to optimize the (amount of) value in our life? An then proceeds to tell us how to do it. And even elucidates how this theory will spread around the world and be universally adopted. Yes, it turns out that it can.
“”The measure of our lives is how much we were of service to others.”
It may be of interest to you familiar with the work of Husserl to note that in Husserl’s Phenominology what Hartman called Intrinsic Value, Husserl calls Intentionality.
It is no coincidence. R. S. Hartman was a student in some of Husserl’s classes in Germany. There Hartman picked up the concept of ‘Intentionality’ and when devising his own system, which he named Formal Axiology, he adapted the concept to fit into this new, unique paradigm.
Your thoughts? All comments and questions are welcomed.