There is more than one path that leads to Rome.
Given the responses that you have given to me and Magnus, it seems that you don’t really understand the issues.
Death or submitting to rape. Death or supporting a tyrant.
Do you not understand the ethical choice?
Every ought concerns a future state. Nobody is talking about changing the present state … since that’s impossible.
Ought always refers to some future moment, distant or close.
What you ought to be in the present moment is another phrasing of what you ought to be in the immediate future.
There is no necessary connection between what one is and what one ought to be. If one is alive, that does not necessarily mean one ought to be alive.
You can choose to kill yourself, for example. That sort of decision is obviously not grounded in what is. It goes directly against it.
There is, quite simply, no necessary connection between is and ought.
You are trying to salvage the idea of necessary connection by arguing that one who decides to commit suicide is doing so because he is already dead. Which is ridiculous.
One who chooses death may be more consciously alive than one who saves his own life.
You speak of “a rich and valuable ethical life.” How do you define “ethical life”?
Irrelevant. You really did interact with Bigus too much. 
Even if so (and it certainly isn’t), “that is your opinion” is a meaningless response (implying that you “don’t understand the issue”).
When you place a goal above your pursuit of being alive, you are already dead (unless you didn’t really succeed). That doesn’t necessarily mean that you will not live again later when and if your will changes back to a pursuit of living.
And what I was talking about was only the “most primary ought” (accepting reality). From that point other oughts arise.
See above.
The one who lives off the land in Alaska is not harming anyone. He is not squandering the resources of the Earth. He lives in harmony with his surroundings. He serves nobody and expects nobody to serve him.
Is that not ethical?
Necessity is self-imposed. When you choose one impulse as your dominant (= unconditional) impulse, then necessity follows. It becomes necessary to organize all other impulses such that they serve, rather than sabotage, the dominant impulse.
In the modern USA, it will get you shot (because there are no witnesses).
It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. 
Oddly enough, the Hall of Heroes is filled with those who gave up their lives for greater goals. 
Which demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues at stake.
Maybe you OUGHT not respond to me.
Not even close.
You would not recognize it or admit anyways. 
I understand the is-ought dilemma raised by Hume was resolved by Kant.
If one were to understand fully both Hume’s views and Kant’s solution then one would have at least 95% understanding and resolution of the issue.
One cannot expect an “is” to be an “ought” in moral terms.
What is critical is the “is” and “ought” must interact in complementarity without dissolving into each other.
Let the white be “is” and black be “ought” then let them jive in a rock and roll dance.
“Is” is necessary and “ought” is Cartesian doubt…
But not all Cartesian doubt is contingent, therefor you can derive ought from is…
sigh
Let me explain this better…
Existence ought to exist
Existence is existant
Existence ought to exist because logic allows no option, so it is an “is” to that regard
Dammit, I keep having to give thorough proofs!!!
There ought be nothing is a logical statement, or else it cannot be a veracity statement …
This is to refute “there ought be logic or no logic”
Earlier, in the first post of this thread, I showed how a Moral Ought can be derived from some “is” statements., statements that can be confirmed by observations, by a consensus of trained observers.
We measure our ideas against science, and science measures everything. We can, (given the scientific definition of terms, such as “Ethics”; along with the Axiom of Ethics as science, which reads: Ethical individuals approve of efforts to make things morally better) derive such conclusions as “Murder is wrong.”
We can even derive “unprovoked aggression is wrong” because we have shown [in earlier threads and in the selections linked to below in the signature] how “Do no harm!” is derived. Robert S. Hartman has provided us with a measuring tool, the Hartman Value Profile – which produces as many as 60 scores relevant to moral health concerns.
Science is the measure of all things; it measures the Universe and its parts. It turns black-or-white rigidities into shades of gray. …and “even these shades of gray may at the edges become fuzzy,” Bart Kosko tells us. [size=54][To measure those we need to employ decimal fractions, such as is done in dynamic mechanical balancing systems. See the mathematics of – what is unfortunately named – or misnamed – “Fuzzy Logic”. This math may turn out to be very useful for Ethics.][/size]
There are laws of nature – at the Newtonian level – and, it is the case that humans are a part of nature, and thus subject to those laws. Human laws are subject to natural law, to the law that every effect has a cause. Yet the fact is that the metalanguage for the new Science of Ethics avoids committing what G. E. Moore named “The Naturalistic Fallacy.”
Since the term “wrong” is well-defined in the system, and “Do no harm” is a theorem in that system, what other theorems follow from this? Here are some of them: Hurling insults (personal ad hominem attacks) is wrong. Psychological abuse is wrong. Violence is wrong. War is wrong. Pollution is wrong. Claiming “Everything is permissible!” is wrong. Stealing, shoplifting, cheating and fraud are wrong – for they do harm.
As should be obvious, all of the above derivations DO NOT constitute moralizing and should not be confused with it. They are not telling anyone how to liive, they are simply deuctions awaiting experimental design for many of them are testable. These claims and predictions within the theory of the new paradigm can be matched to facts, to observations. They will correspond to reality. The Coherence Theory of Truth {a mere Systemic value} is not enough. Fairy tales can cohere. In contrast, science, including Ethics as science, prefers {an Extrinsic value} The Correspondence Theory of Truth: match statements and beliefs to facts and evidence.
The theorems of Ethics as science are true by observation, not just derivation from an earlier axiom. The most basic assumption that is made, in the metalanguage for this Ethics paradigm is that every concept has an intension and an extension. The rest, the definitions of “good” and “bad,” as well as the remainder of the theory follows from that premise. See the early pages of ETHICS; A College Course for the details as to how it is managed. Many critical thinkers familiar with Logic, have through the years found that premise to be reasonable and acceptable. It has stood the test of time.
The word ‘murder’ already contains a moral judgement. Is killing wrong?
In the context of self-defense or opposing tyranny?
Depends on what is considered ‘provocation’. What’s the ‘scientific’ definition of ‘provocation’?
People are harmed in the process of day-today living. It’s impossible not to harm. There has to be a balancing of harm.
A young family wants low interest rates in order to purchase a house while at the same time a senior wants high interest rates because he depends on income from investments. What is the interest rate which produces no harm? There isn’t one.
Pollution is a by-product of living and production. When a person heats his home, he produces pollution.
What is a reasonable amount of pollution? How do we manage pollution and still satisfy our needs?
A simplistic moral statement like “pollution is wrong” is not useful.
Some people have no way out of their oppression except by way of armed rebellion.
How do you use the use the “laws of nature” to determine whether you should help someone who is being accosted or if you should walk away? You risk your own life by intervening.
It seems that the Newtonian laws don’t help you in reaching a decision.