3 ms·

>Sure, but no matter what, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is". The same applies to humans, no?

• Iolaum 7y ago
  No it doesn't. When a humam gets wronged by what "is" they can likely feel or imagine a better "ought".
  • jmmcd 7y ago
    They can feel or imagine an "ought", but the point of Hume is that they can't argue for it.
    • goatlover 7y ago
      And yet humans do, all the time. It's similar to Hume's attack on causality. You can't show that A caused B, but yet we all act like it's the case, when B always follows A. Kant's critique comes next.
  • naveen99 7y ago
    You don’t think an machines can learn to classify situations as good or bad for them ?