"Ought" Derivable from "Is"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Very reasonable critique.

As raised by Fuse, there is something missing, perhaps a missing premise or terms.
viewtopic.php?p=2771554#p2771554

I added the following points to the premises.

    P1 'IS' [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
    P2 Humans condition and derive OUGHT_ness from IS
    C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS

P1 is prevailing, thus 'being conditioned' is grammatically correct [??].
P2 is active, i.e. humans are deriving ought from IS.

The above is a general model.

As specifically for moral ought and moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs], they are derived, conditioned and justified from a Moral Framework and System via empirical and philosophical means, just like how scientific facts are derived and conditioned from the Scientific Framework and System with its scientific method, peer review, etc.

Welcome more comments where necessary.

I hope you don't mind me pointing out logical flaws - I understand it can come across as patronising and some people find it difficult. Not my intention.

Your coloured additions unfortunately introduce another one to premise 2:
If we separate P2 by its logical conjunction (the "and") into the subject "Humans" with two different predicates "condition OUGHT_ness from IS" and "derive OUGHT_ness from IS", we note the latter predicate is equivalent to the conclusion.
(Humans) "derive OUGHT_ness from IS" is semantically identical to "OUGHT is derived from IS". This is known as "begging the question", which just means "assuming the conclusion" - i.e. a kind of circular reasoning where the conclusion is already in the premises. This is an informal logical fallacy - because of course your conclusion will follow from the premises if you've already stated it in a premise from which your conclusion is derived.

Deriving "ought" from "is", and "ought" derived from is", use the active and passive voice respectively to mean the same thing - as I brought up in my last post.
I don't want you to misunderstand me - using either voice is entirely valid grammatically: "being conditioned" is indeed grammatically correct, and so is (humans) "deriving ought from is". The only thing that's different is the "point of view", if you like.
"The dog followed the human" and "the human was followed by the dog" describe identical situations, only the former (active voice in this case) is the point of the view of the dog, and the latter (passive voice in this case) is the point of view of the human. The dog is doing an action in the former, and the human is passively involved in what the dog's doing in the latter, but the two statements are logically interchangeable as the semantic value carried by either voicing is identical.
As a suggestion: try to make the voices you're using consistent throughout your argument if that helps you more easily assess the validity of its progression, because I think grammar is tripping you up here.

For your P1, you have the element "IS" being part of the set "things that are conditioned by humans". This is fairly tautologous, because the property of existence is a pre-condition for being acted on in any way (e.g. being conditioned (by humans)).
For your P2, you state that "humans condition oughtness" as a fact, which seems fine to me.
If your conclusion is to be that "ought is derived from is", perhaps it's first necessary to establish that "conditioning" amounts to the object of conditioning being "derived" from the subject doing the conditioning. This would allow P2 to state that "oughtness is derived from humans", or "humans derive oughtness" (same thing, different voice).

In this case, for P2 to validly lead to C1, P1 would have to be something like "humans are derived from IS_ness". This would allow the form:
P1: B <= A
P2: C <= B
C1: C <= A
where A denotes "IS_ness", B denotes "humans", and C denotes "OUGHT_ness". I wrote the arrows backwards to mimic the passive voice that makes the argument easier to read:
"Humans" derived from "is", ought derived from "humans", therefore "ought" derived from "is".

And I guess humans are indeed derived from "IS_ness", given objective existence independent of the human perception of it - as most people believe it to be.
But as sound as this syllogism now is, all it really says is that "ought" is a thing that exists that comes to existence via the existence of humans. This seems fairly uncontroversial.

"You can't get an is from an ought" is getting at something different. "Ought" is an element of the set "Is", because oughtness "exists". But there is nothing necessarily "ought" as a result of what "is".
It's possible to assert an ought "within" the scope of what "is", about something that "is", as something that "is". This invokes the realm of modal logic:
P1: "Is" possibly derives humans (◻A → ◇B)
P2: Humans possibly derive oughts (◇B → ◇C)
C1: It is possible that "is" derives "ought", but it is not necessary that "is" derives "ought". (◻A → ◇C ∧ ¬◻C)

Basically, you can derive "ought" from "is", but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it's not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it's logic.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:29 pm

Silhouette,

We’ve been through this before. Syllogisms don’t work. Period. They’re interesting. Intuition is greater than our current logic trees.

When I said months ago that nobody wants their consent violated, you came at me with “nobody wants, what nobody wants”. In this statement of yours you argued that it was too circular (didn’t refer to anything outside itself) to be meaningful.

Thing is: every being on this earth knows they don’t want their consent violated. Everyone intuitively knows what that means. What I’m doing here is attacking your syllogism methodology. And prismatics as well.

That both of you think syllogisms are intellectual is absurd. I even brought up the point of infinite counting numbers as an example. We know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Etc... goes on forever, but since nobody can count an infinity it’s impossible to prove with a syllogism (try it!)

Logic is ultimately intuitive, inferential ...

Syllogisms don’t work. They’re the curiosities of hobbyists.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Mad Man P » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:27 pm

Silhouette wrote:Basically, you can derive "ought" from "is", but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it's not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it's logic.


This is not true.

If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island.. there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
"Morality" has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary... the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:22 am

The nihilist position approaches value as arbitrary in content, as not necessary to a humans existence. I beg to differ.

Existence, for a self-governing entity, is contingent upon being value-consistent. So whereas essence (character, value, ought) isn't prior to coming into existence, it is required for continued existence.

(the Is extracts the Ought from itself in as far as it withstands time, entropy)
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:44 am

Silhouette wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Very reasonable critique.

As raised by Fuse, there is something missing, perhaps a missing premise or terms.
viewtopic.php?p=2771554#p2771554

I added the following points to the premises.

    P1 'IS' [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
    P2 Humans condition and derive OUGHT_ness from IS
    C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS

P1 is prevailing, thus 'being conditioned' is grammatically correct [??].
P2 is active, i.e. humans are deriving ought from IS.

The above is a general model.

As specifically for moral ought and moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs], they are derived, conditioned and justified from a Moral Framework and System via empirical and philosophical means, just like how scientific facts are derived and conditioned from the Scientific Framework and System with its scientific method, peer review, etc.

Welcome more comments where necessary.

I hope you don't mind me pointing out logical flaws - I understand it can come across as patronising and some people find it difficult. Not my intention.

Not an issue with me as long as you have an argument to support your point.

I believe you missed out the critical fundamental and foundation to the OP., i.e.

OP wrote:The following is the foundation of the argument;
In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.

In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind).

Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

Today it is more usually contrasted with [Philosophical] Anti-Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism


Philosophical Anti-Realism [PAR] is the opposite to Philosophical Realism.
Philosophical Anti-Realism claims that objects [things] exist in reality interdependent with our [human] conception schemes.
Thus reality is interdependent and conditioned upon human conditions.

My PAR is not skepticism nor solipsism but rather it is Kantian Transcendental Idealism or Empirical Realism.



Your coloured additions unfortunately introduce another one to premise 2:
If we separate P2 by its logical conjunction (the "and") into the subject "Humans" with two different predicates "condition OUGHT_ness from IS" and "derive OUGHT_ness from IS", we note the latter predicate is equivalent to the conclusion.
(Humans) "derive OUGHT_ness from IS" is semantically identical to "OUGHT is derived from IS". This is known as "begging the question", which just means "assuming the conclusion" - i.e. a kind of circular reasoning where the conclusion is already in the premises. This is an informal logical fallacy - because of course your conclusion will follow from the premises if you've already stated it in a premise from which your conclusion is derived.

I agree with your point.
It is only because I am too hasty.

P2 require more explanation regarding the term 'condition'.
Here is an analogy:
Humans condition scientific knowledge/fact/truth from "IS" via the Scientific Framework.
Similarly,
humans condition facts from "IS" via specific framework and system of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, geometry, legal, economics to produce their respective specific conditional facts. In this case, I am more concern with moral facts produced from a moral framework and system.

I can revised P2 to;
Humans condition ought_ness from IS. [explained and justified as above]
How? I will have to explain and justify how it can be done just like Science is doing with scientific facts.


Deriving "ought" from "is", and "ought" derived from is", use the active and passive voice respectively to mean the same thing - as I brought up in my last post.
I don't want you to misunderstand me - using either voice is entirely valid grammatically: "being conditioned" is indeed grammatically correct, and so is (humans) "deriving ought from is". The only thing that's different is the "point of view", if you like.
"The dog followed the human" and "the human was followed by the dog" describe identical situations, only the former (active voice in this case) is the point of the view of the dog, and the latter (passive voice in this case) is the point of view of the human. The dog is doing an action in the former, and the human is passively involved in what the dog's doing in the latter, but the two statements are logically interchangeable as the semantic value carried by either voicing is identical.
As a suggestion: try to make the voices you're using consistent throughout your argument if that helps you more easily assess the validity of its progression, because I think grammar is tripping you up here.

Noted will do where possible, but I believe there is no issue with my syllogism above within the explained circumstances.

For your P1, you have the element "IS" being part of the set "things that are conditioned by humans". This is fairly tautologous, because the property of existence is a pre-condition for being acted on in any way (e.g. being conditioned (by humans)).
For your P2, you state that "humans condition oughtness" as a fact, which seems fine to me.
If your conclusion is to be that "ought is derived from is", perhaps it's first necessary to establish that "conditioning" amounts to the object of conditioning being "derived" from the subject doing the conditioning. This would allow P2 to state that "oughtness is derived from humans", or "humans derive oughtness" (same thing, different voice).

In this case, for P2 to validly lead to C1, P1 would have to be something like "humans are derived from IS_ness". This would allow the form:
P1: B <= A
P2: C <= B
C1: C <= A
where A denotes "IS_ness", B denotes "humans", and C denotes "OUGHT_ness". I wrote the arrows backwards to mimic the passive voice that makes the argument easier to read:
"Humans" derived from "is", ought derived from "humans", therefore "ought" derived from "is".

I believe this is why the foundation stated above is relevant.

And I guess humans are indeed derived from "IS_ness", given objective existence independent of the human perception of it - as most people believe it to be.
But as sound as this syllogism now is, all it really says is that "ought" is a thing that exists that comes to existence via the existence of humans. This seems fairly uncontroversial.

Note the "PAR" i.e. "Philosophical Anti-Realism. mentioned above.
Within PAR, objective existence is NOT independent of human conditions.
Humans co-interact with each other that enable the emergence of reality.
Neither humans nor reality precede the other.
Therefore PAR do not accept, humans are derived from "IS".

Thus my P1,
P1 'IS' [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
It could also be vice-versa since they co-interact.
note I qualified that to PAR.

"You can't get an is from an ought" is getting at something different. "Ought" is an element of the set "Is", because oughtness "exists". But there is nothing necessarily "ought" as a result of what "is".
It's possible to assert an ought "within" the scope of what "is", about something that "is", as something that "is". This invokes the realm of modal logic:
P1: "Is" possibly derives humans (◻A → ◇B)
P2: Humans possibly derive oughts (◇B → ◇C)
C1: It is possible that "is" derives "ought", but it is not necessary that "is" derives "ought". (◻A → ◇C ∧ ¬◻C)

Basically, you can derive "ought" from "is", but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it's not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it's logic.

Note my foundation, i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism [PAR] which oppose Philosophical Realism.

Thus based on PAR, I believe my syllogism is valid ["derived" deleted in P2];

    P1 'IS' [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
    P2 Humans condition* OUGHT_ness from IS
    C1 Therefore, OUGHT is abstractable from IS

* as explained above, i.e. via conditioning framework and system.

Critique definitely welcome.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:51 am

Removed
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:55 am

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

We’ve been through this before. Syllogisms don’t work. Period. They’re interesting. Intuition is greater than our current logic trees.

When I said months ago that nobody wants their consent violated, you came at me with “nobody wants, what nobody wants”. In this statement of yours you argued that it was too circular (didn’t refer to anything outside itself) to be meaningful.

Thing is: every being on this earth knows they don’t want their consent violated. Everyone intuitively knows what that means. What I’m doing here is attacking your syllogism methodology. And prismatics as well.

That both of you think syllogisms are intellectual is absurd. I even brought up the point of infinite counting numbers as an example. We know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Etc... goes on forever, but since nobody can count an infinity it’s impossible to prove with a syllogism (try it!)

Logic is ultimately intuitive, inferential ...

Syllogisms don’t work. They’re the curiosities of hobbyists.

Syllogisms are not the ALL of arguments nor reality.
However they provide a very structured framework and systematic approach for criticism and improvement of one's thoughts and ideas.

My syllogism enable an easy means for critique and improvements to one's idea.
As highlighted by Silhouette i have revised my syllogisms and there is a basis for me to provide additional explanation and premises.

There are other means beside syllogism, e.g. narratives, explanations, induction, reflective equilibrium, coherentism and others.
You just cannot throw in anything intuitive without conforming to one of the above, otherwise anything goes to the extreme of allowing the most terrible evil intent to creep in.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:00 am

Mad Man P wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Basically, you can derive "ought" from "is", but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it's not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it's logic.


This is not true.

If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island.. there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
"Morality" has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary... the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.

In general, agree to the bolded.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:15 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:(the Is extracts the Ought from itself in as far as it withstands time, entropy)

A simple enough formula which, I think, answers your full query.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:10 pm

Mad Man P wrote:If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island.. there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
"Morality" has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary... the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.

When I think of "ought", an accordance to a moral code comes to mind.

You're right that the term is also commonly used synonymously with individual values, even irrespective of moral codes:
If you want to survive, you ought to eat and drink.
If you want to get from A to B, you ought to move.

But even this usage is circular: if you value Y, you to ought to Z. Why ought you to value Y? Because if you value Y, it's because you value X such that if you value X then you ought to Y. And so on potentially infinitely regressively.
An ought must be an assumed premise somewhere down the line in order for the conclusion to be an ought: circular reasoning.

You might say you value X because such a value "just is". In this case, the "ought" is the "is", immediately. I can't help valuing eating, because sufficient hunger compels me to value seeking food whether I want it to or not. It is upon me, immediately: the "ought" premise is built in, but then there is the frontal cortex that can mediate these impulses. That enables me to just "do nothing", to "not value the compulsion". It is perfectly possible to do this and potentially even "ought" myself out of "is" altogether. It would be anthropomorphising to attribute value to entropy, but it appears that existence simply will increase "your" entropy whether you "ought" to elongate the time it takes from birth to death - or not. It didn't have to, but it just does whether it ought to or not, and you didn't have to value counter to it.

Basically, remove the "ought" from premises such as "human survival" or "human preference", and you have nothing about "is" to make into an "ought". Objectives would not exist in the first place, because there is no value to precede it.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:20 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island.. there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
"Morality" has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary... the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.

When I think of "ought", an accordance to a moral code comes to mind.

You're right that the term is also commonly used synonymously with individual values, even irrespective of moral codes:
If you want to survive, you ought to eat and drink.
If you want to get from A to B, you ought to move.

But even this usage is circular: if you value Y, you to ought to Z. Why ought you to value Y? Because if you value Y, it's because you value X such that if you value X then you ought to Y. And so on potentially infinitely regressively.
An ought must be an assumed premise somewhere down the line in order for the conclusion to be an ought: circular reasoning.

You might say you value X because such a value "just is". In this case, the "ought" is the "is", immediately. I can't help valuing eating, because sufficient hunger compels me to value seeking food whether I want it to or not. It is upon me, immediately: the "ought" premise is built in, but then there is the frontal cortex that can mediate these impulses. That enables me to just "do nothing", to "not value the compulsion". It is perfectly possible to do this and potentially even "ought" myself out of "is" altogether. It would be anthropomorphising to attribute value to entropy, but it appears that existence simply will increase "your" entropy whether you "ought" to elongate the time it takes from birth to death - or not. It didn't have to, but it just does whether it ought to or not, and you didn't have to value counter to it.

Basically, remove the "ought" from premises such as "human survival" or "human preference", and you have nothing about "is" to make into an "ought". Objectives would not exist in the first place, because there is no value to precede it.



I disagree. The regression misses the object of the original intention , not because it was consciously abandoned, but because it was forgotten . as based on the progressive nature of development.

The nurturing of the young at some point looses it's automatic reflex character, and becomes some matter of choice, when, for instance, and at that point the 'is'and the 'ought' become traditionally transparent, seeking some value, in a moral alignment.

Guilt is the subconscious misalignment between initial unrealized motives, and later projected objective beliefs, and the adult parent learns by a different set of rules, why he should not abandon it's young
Even animals learn that such may be necessary, and the will hold their ground in the defence of their young.

When talk about the role of .....then, it is inaccurate to premise the idea if absolute unconscious motivation with zero choice.

Guilt is the unknown result of misaligned relationship in this regard, and religion happened when social consciousness had to institute such a tool that would enable existence to sustain the progressive need for constant re-affirmation for cultural development.

The question could have not been posed as such initially, and early religions reflected a basic disparity between intended relationships which led to foundemental objectives.

That most religions started from intuitive aspects of behavior is factual, and it needed higher developing objects of transition to enable it to sustain refined moral objectives.

That these objectives are relative and not iron clad ideal artifice, do not take away their significance, but reduce the misaligned importance that a basic elemental question of whether existence should go on.

But hard pressed, that premise dilutes retroactively unto the foundation of the most basic organic level , and looses it's signifiers.

At the same time, to say, that such dilution of objective criteria simply 'is' may also be a misnomer, because at some point it transposed into choices: here, between abandoning it sustaining the reason why .

Even faced with the horrendous post modern challenges we face today, the fallacy resolves itself axiomatically, which is the reverse of the tautology pointed to.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Mad Man P » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:30 pm

Silhouette wrote:Basically, remove the "ought" from premises such as "human survival" or "human preference", and you have nothing about "is" to make into an "ought". Objectives would not exist in the first place, because there is no value to precede it.


True, absent values from which to form objectives there is no ought.
But fortunately the one self-evident truth, the well from which we draw everything else admits to values.

There exists qualitative experience... it's the one thing we can be certain there IS.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:42 pm

Mad Man P wrote:True, absent values from which to form objectives there is no ought.
But fortunately the one self-evident truth, the well from which we draw everything else admits to values.

There exists qualitative experience... it's the one thing we can be certain there IS.

Yeah, that's the human experience.
You enter in, you're valuing right from the start: ought "is" by default - we can be certain that this qualitative experience IS, I agree.

How do you derive this ought from what is?
In order for ought to be derivable from is, "is" must first exist - no issues there, seems pretty straightforwardly tautologous - and from then "ought" must subsequently be derivable.
The intention here is to justify how you enter in with ought right from the start by default.
The intention here is determine whether your ought is "justified" objectively.

Several problems: how do you remove "ought" from "is", in order to assess it objectively, when it's all you knew from the start? People all seem to have these very different and often irreconcilable ideas about what they, you, and everyone "ought" (to value), varying considerably geographically and historically. And if you have an objective to do this, aren't you failing to remove "ought" from "is" from the start anyway? Even if you did succeed, how do you evaluate value without value?

Chiefly - the whole enterprise is flawed: it's like trying to evaluate consciousness. You're always going to be doing it circularly from consciousness being necessary from the start and throughout.
How do you evaluate value pre-value? It's a contradiction: you can't validly derive ought from is.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Mad Man P » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:07 pm

Silhouette wrote:You're always going to be doing it circularly from consciousness being necessary from the start and throughout.
How do you evaluate value pre-value? It's a contradiction: you can't validly derive ought from is.


You're confusing what "ought" indicates as separate from what an IS indicates.

"Oughts" are about HOW to navigate to goals, which may include adopting other values.
So for example, if you value your life, you OUGHT to also value clean water, IF the reality you are in makes clean water a necessary condition for your continued existence.

You can build a network of "oughts" from a single objective as constrained by reality.
Much the same way you can build a massive list of oughts from the singular objective of chess as constrained by the rules.
You can learn the value of different pieces, the value of individual moves, the value of strategy and forward planning, the value of understanding your opponent, being able to anticipate their moves etc.
It's possible to not value any such thing and still be playing chess to win... but then you often fail.
These values all spring up as "oughts" DERIVED from the two simple IS statements that make up chess...

What IS the Circumstance
What IS the Objective

It should be clear at this point that while ought can be derived from IS, it's not always simple or easy and we may fail to get it right...
The same is true of trying to build a coherent model of the reality we experience... physics is a mere model, we think reflects reality... we can be wrong.
Likewise we may have ideas about how to lead a life so as to have the quality of our experience be satisfactory... and we can be wrong.

There are objective facts to be had here... and they will inform what ought to be valued, given what IS valued.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:12 pm

Syllogisms are absurd...

Let me attempt one!

1.) Consent violation occurs
2.) nobody wants their consent violated
3.) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4.) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I’m sure I skipped a few steps, but that’s not really the point. Syllogisms NEVER define soundness of the IS!!!

Let alone the inference of the OUGHT!!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:20 am

Ecmandu wrote:Syllogisms are absurd...

Let me attempt one!

1.) Consent violation occurs
2.) nobody wants their consent violated
3.) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4.) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I’m sure I skipped a few steps, but that’s not really the point. Syllogisms NEVER define soundness of the IS!!!

Let alone the inference of the OUGHT!!!

Note meaning of consent again.

Consent:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/consent
a. Give permission for something to happen.
‘he consented to a search by a detective’

b. Agree to do something.
‘he had consented to serve on the panel’


What does your [2] mean;
2.) nobody wants their consent violated

Re [a] You mean, if someone give consent [permission] to others for something to happen, then, his consent should not be violated?
What if, as in the last example' Hitler gave consent to kill Jews?
It would not be immoral to violent such a consent.

Re[b] if someone consented to do something evil,
his consent should not be violated?

You are not using the term 'consent' appropriately in the above.

What is more appropriate as generally accepted is no human should violate the 'basic human dignity' of another, .e.g. take another as a chattel slave.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:52 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Syllogisms are absurd...

Let me attempt one!

1.) Consent violation occurs
2.) nobody wants their consent violated
3.) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4.) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I’m sure I skipped a few steps, but that’s not really the point. Syllogisms NEVER define soundness of the IS!!!

Let alone the inference of the OUGHT!!!

Note meaning of consent again.

Consent:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/consent
a. Give permission for something to happen.
‘he consented to a search by a detective’

b. Agree to do something.
‘he had consented to serve on the panel’


What does your [2] mean;
2.) nobody wants their consent violated

Re [a] You mean, if someone give consent [permission] to others for something to happen, then, his consent should not be violated?
What if, as in the last example' Hitler gave consent to kill Jews?
It would not be immoral to violent such a consent.

Re[b] if someone consented to do something evil,
his consent should not be violated?

You are not using the term 'consent' appropriately in the above.

What is more appropriate as generally accepted is no human should violate the 'basic human dignity' of another, .e.g. take another as a chattel slave.


And what I already told you. In a consent violating reality such as ours, ‘law’ enforcement is reasonable.

But you’re not looking at the bigger picture here: the macro

Nobody ultimately wants to live in a reality where consent can possibly be violated. Not Hitler, not the allies... everyone hates that shit!

It’s a macro law of existence.

I’m the type of being that when any beings consent is violated, it violates my consent.

You should be thankful beings like me exist, because I can guarantee every being on earth will and would be sent to hell. You’re as bad a Hitler, you just don’t understand it yet. Consent violating realities spare nobody. You’re in a hell realm right now. Almost every possible decision you make here will send you to an even worse hell. In a zero sum reality, you must proactively regret ALL of your memories to be spared.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Silhouette » Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:39 pm

Mad Man P wrote:It should be clear at this point that while ought can be derived from IS, it's not always simple or easy and we may fail to get it right...
The same is true of trying to build a coherent model of the reality we experience... physics is a mere model, we think reflects reality... we can be wrong.
Likewise we may have ideas about how to lead a life so as to have the quality of our experience be satisfactory... and we can be wrong.

There are objective facts to be had here... and they will inform what ought to be valued, given what IS valued.

I certainly agree that objective facts inform, and that they can precede an "ought".

My point is that they merely temper the translation of one "ought" to another. An "ought" that's informed by an "is" comes after this "is", but it doesn't originate in this "is". The "is" can certainly be significant in this process, but it's just the decoration (the style/way) from one "ought" to another "ought" - it's not where the latter "ought" came from. The "ought" came from a previous "ought", and the "is" just tells you how. Not why.

A good "is" can describe how one "ought" to go about achieving an objective better than a bad "is". That bad "is" can in turn describe how one "ought" to go about achieving that same objective better than a worse "is". One "ought" to pick the best "is" that's on offer, but only provided the best "is" was what is valued in the first place. Maybe you want a challenge, maybe you want to self-destruct, maybe you ought not to pick the best way for whatever reason - an "is" can build on the mechanics of how to get anywhere, but without an initial ought to direct it, it has nothing to build upon. "How" needs a "why" - an "is" needs an "ought". You can't derive an "is" without first having an "ought".

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

We’ve been through this before. Syllogisms don’t work. Period. They’re interesting. Intuition is greater than our current logic trees.

When I said months ago that nobody wants their consent violated, you came at me with “nobody wants, what nobody wants”. In this statement of yours you argued that it was too circular (didn’t refer to anything outside itself) to be meaningful.

Thing is: every being on this earth knows they don’t want their consent violated. Everyone intuitively knows what that means. What I’m doing here is attacking your syllogism methodology. And prismatics as well.

That both of you think syllogisms are intellectual is absurd. I even brought up the point of infinite counting numbers as an example. We know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Etc... goes on forever, but since nobody can count an infinity it’s impossible to prove with a syllogism (try it!)

Logic is ultimately intuitive, inferential ...

Syllogisms don’t work. They’re the curiosities of hobbyists.

I agree that people tend to not want their consent violated - because this is basically the same as saying everyone wants what they want. This is most apparent in babies who know nothing more than to express distress whenever they aren't getting what they want, which just so happens to manipulate the parents into providing it. Gradually they learn to cope with not getting what they want sometimes and in certain ways - adapting to the environment and the parenting. They might eventually even learn the value of self-sacrifice, delaying gratification, and taking on difficult challenges instead of choosing an easier path. It's easy enough to frame these more advanced behaviours in terms of them consenting to a certain degree of "not getting what they want" in order to attain a certain degree of "getting what they want" in another way. But even if you do this, you recognise a relativity to "consent" that isn't as absolute as "nobody wants their consent violated" - it looks like more of a trade-off where there's a definite overall aversion to consent violation, but not clearly and cleanly - not devoid of some degree of consent to have one's consent violated. It's not black and white, and shouldn't be considered and phrased in a black and white way.

This is always going to be the case in a universe where there is entropy, competition, and where planning is effective. A universe without these things would perhaps eradicate consent violation and you'd exist like a kind of pleasure-amoeba constantly wishing for more and more pleasure, and getting your wish over and over without any hint of obstacle. A bizarre existence, certainly without higher purpose - but I guess you wouldn't care if "getting what you want" was constant regardless of what you did.

Onto syllogisms - unfortunately any attack you can possibly mount against them will be self-contradictory.
"Syllogisms don't work."
"Why is that anything more than a claim interchangeable with its opposite or anything else?"
"Because....." - and you've already begun to construct a syllogism whether you realise it or not.

If you have a "statement" because of "reasons", the statement is contingent upon said reasons such that "if reasons, then statement".
Your premises are your reasons, your conclusion is your statement. Your reasoning can be reduced to a syllogism.
So, "syllogisms don't work" relying on the syllogistic is a contradiction.

The only way around this would be to dodge all reasoning and logic, and simply "claim".
Blindly following your intuition can certainly precede this, and you can simply deny reason citing said intuition. You'd be impossible to argue with, and any and all interaction with you would be irrational and without purpose - except for you to simply express your intuition.

If however you intended to be reasonable/rational instead, every argument you make could be reduced to syllogisms that would either be valid or invalid and maybe even sound (or unsound). Trying to complain about syllogisms is to try and deny the exercise of thoroughly and precisely breaking down your reasoning, presumably to let through any prejudice and fallacies that you merely intuit without explicit reason. I'm not going to let you or anyone else off that easily.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:37 pm

Silhouette,

My argument is simple:

The IS from a syllogism cannot be proven (sound) (I’m going to turn the argument of circularity against you!)

The inference (the ought) can also not be proven.

We have a higher brain function that performs these tasks for us.

How can you prove 1,2,3,4,5,6... is an infinite sequence? You can’t count all of them to PROVE it!!!

We have higher cognitive functions than syllogisms!

Even accepting this argument is a higher cognitive function.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:16 am

Ecmandu wrote:How can you prove 1,2,3,4,5,6... is an infinite sequence? You can’t count all of them to PROVE it!!!

We have higher cognitive functions than syllogisms!

Even accepting this argument is a higher cognitive function.

We prove it via syllogism.

P1: A sequence that starts at "1" is possible
P2: It is possible to repeatedly add one to any sequence without stopping
C1: Repeatedly adding one to a sequence that starts at "1" doesn't stop

Everything logical can be reduced to syllogism. Higher cognitive function is all you need to weed out anything illogical to your intuitions and the intuitions of others, and to succeed in reducing them to syllogisms that are either valid or not, and either sound or not. Intuitions that turn out to be illogical can thereby be thrown out in favour of those that are - or better yet, logically corrected. You can logically correct all your intuitions via syllogism, or you can irrationally simply claim intuition is just "higher".

Back on topic, you really can choose either - there isn't any objective reason to do one rather than the other. First you have to value (to "ought"). Only accepting this "ought" can "is" be applied to this reason to determine how best you "ought" to make this choice. "Ought 1" -> via "is" -> "Ought 2".
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:27 am

Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:How can you prove 1,2,3,4,5,6... is an infinite sequence? You can’t count all of them to PROVE it!!!

We have higher cognitive functions than syllogisms!

Even accepting this argument is a higher cognitive function.

We prove it via syllogism.

P1: A sequence that starts at "1" is possible
P2: It is possible to repeatedly add one to any sequence without stopping
C1: Repeatedly adding one to a sequence that starts at "1" doesn't stop

Everything logical can be reduced to syllogism. Higher cognitive function is all you need to weed out anything illogical to your intuitions and the intuitions of others, and to succeed in reducing them to syllogisms that are either valid or not, and either sound or not. Intuitions that turn out to be illogical can thereby be thrown out in favour of those that are - or better yet, logically corrected. You can logically correct all your intuitions via syllogism, or you can irrationally simply claim intuition is just "higher".

Back on topic, you really can choose either - there isn't any objective reason to do one rather than the other. First you have to value (to "ought"). Only accepting this "ought" can "is" be applied to this reason to determine how best you "ought" to make this choice. "Ought 1" -> via "is" -> "Ought 2".


You missed my whole point. I can write a syllogism that states that:

1.) “repeatedly adding one to a sequence a 1 that doesn’t stop”

2.) if you can’t count it, then you can’t be sure it doesn’t stop

I know silhouette, I know the way your mind works with your ego. I know this is anathema to you. Syllogisms don’t work. It’s all intuition. Me, being an objectivist, understands how frustrating that is to you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:08 am

Silhouette wrote:My point is that they merely temper the translation of one "ought" to another. An "ought" that's informed by an "is" comes after this "is", but it doesn't originate in this "is". The "is" can certainly be significant in this process, but it's just the decoration (the style/way) from one "ought" to another "ought" - it's not where the latter "ought" came from. The "ought" came from a previous "ought", and the "is" just tells you how. Not why.


You're equivocating, the motive force in our existence is not a matter of "ought"... It just IS.
An ought cannot exist, where there are no options... and there is no option in what IS.

But what IS provides us goals and options and that's where every "ought" comes from.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:25 am

Silhouette wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:It should be clear at this point that while ought can be derived from IS, it's not always simple or easy and we may fail to get it right...
The same is true of trying to build a coherent model of the reality we experience... physics is a mere model, we think reflects reality... we can be wrong.
Likewise we may have ideas about how to lead a life so as to have the quality of our experience be satisfactory... and we can be wrong.

There are objective facts to be had here... and they will inform what ought to be valued, given what IS valued.

I certainly agree that objective facts inform, and that they can precede an "ought".

My point is that they merely temper the translation of one "ought" to another. An "ought" that's informed by an "is" comes after this "is", but it doesn't originate in this "is". The "is" can certainly be significant in this process, but it's just the decoration (the style/way) from one "ought" to another "ought" - it's not where the latter "ought" came from. The "ought" came from a previous "ought", and the "is" just tells you how. Not why.

A good "is" can describe how one "ought" to go about achieving an objective better than a bad "is". That bad "is" can in turn describe how one "ought" to go about achieving that same objective better than a worse "is". One "ought" to pick the best "is" that's on offer, but only provided the best "is" was what is valued in the first place. Maybe you want a challenge, maybe you want to self-destruct, maybe you ought not to pick the best way for whatever reason - an "is" can build on the mechanics of how to get anywhere, but without an initial ought to direct it, it has nothing to build upon. "How" needs a "why" - an "is" needs an "ought".
You can't derive an "is" without first having an "ought".

You seem to have distorted 'what is' to the extreme.

The 'is' in the Hume's IS-OUGHT problem basically refers to reality and existence.
Reality in this case is all-there-is in existence.
In another sense, "is' is just the copula in connecting the subject with the predicate within reality.

In the above case, there is no question of an "ought" preceding "is" which is reality itself.

'Ought' only arises when humans introduce various specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and impose or conditioned it upon "is" i.e. reality.
It is by default these FSKs has their specific 'objectives' which then generate 'oughts' to drive actions or inhibitions.
For example, the Scientific FSK imposes upon reality and generate Scientific Facts from what are originally 'conjectures' [Popper].
This is what Searle meant by Constitutional facts.

Thus a moral framework and system with its moral objectives imposing on reality, generate moral ought[s] as moral facts. [nb: moral facts has nothing to do with "fact" of Analytic Philosophy].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:29 am

Ecmandu wrote:
I ) Consent violation occurs
2 ) nobody wants their consent violated
3 ) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4 ) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I ) Consent violation is a feature of the Universe so is both natural and inevitable - whether it be in the laws of physics or in the laws of man
2 ) The greatest consent violation is the first one - being born - so the logical solution is suicide but that is not actually a very popular choice
3 ) Consent violation is ubiquitous because everything is subject to some type of restriction and so it is either accept it or fight it all your life
4 ) Given the general unpopularity of suicide the next most practical option is for everyone to keep consent violation to an absolute minimum
5 ) Consent violation will eventually be eradicated but only when we become extinct - we cannot make it happen - we must leave it to Nature
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: "Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:49 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
I ) Consent violation occurs
2 ) nobody wants their consent violated
3 ) if one consent violation occurs that means consent violation can / will happen to any / everyone
4 ) eradicate all consent violation in existence

I ) Consent violation is a feature of the Universe so is both natural and inevitable - whether it be in the laws of physics or in the laws of man
2 ) The greatest consent violation is the first one - being born - so the logical solution is suicide but that is not actually a very popular choice
3 ) Consent violation is ubiquitous because everything is subject to some type of restriction and so it is either accept it or fight it all your life
4 ) Given the general unpopularity of suicide the next most practical option is for everyone to keep consent violation to an absolute minimum
5 ) Consent violation will eventually be eradicated but only when we become extinct - we cannot make it happen - we must leave it to Nature


Birth is neutral consent. Consent occurs later in life. Without birth we can’t even have a consent to be violated or not.

If we die forever after this: suicide is the most rational choice.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]