4 ms·

Unfortunately, looking at what other entities do doesn't provide any answer to what you ought to do. Is vs ought is a serious problem, unsolved and (as far as

Unfortunately, looking at what other entities do doesn't provide any answer to what you ought to do. Is vs ought is a serious problem, unsolved and (as far as I can see) unsolvable. We end up doing things for no reason other than that we feel like it. But, if your philosophy suggests that you should do things in spite of how you feel, that's going to be a problem.

maroonblazer 12y ago
"looking at what other entities do doesn't provide any answer to what you ought to do." It doesn't? If my neighbor rises early, works hard and seems happier than me, whereas I spend all day in bed and feel depressed, doing what he's doing isn't a bad place to start.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? Advocates of the importance of the is-ought problem want us to be deeply concerned about it, but they never explain why we ought to be. And in fact, we ought not be worried about it whether it is solved, unsolved or unsolvable: Once we identify what it is in our nature that makes solving the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we will have solved the is-ought problem and it will no longer be a problem we ought to be worried about. Until we have identified what it is in our nature that makes the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we have no reason to consider it a problem we ought to be worried about. QED For myself, I think the is-ought problem is ill-posed in its traditional "ultimate moral justification" form and trivially easy in any sensible form that acknowledges the vast amount of stuff Hume didn't know, like evolutionary biology. The sensible form doesn't solve the ultimate-moral-justification question Hume was concerned with for the same reason chemists never solved the creation of the Philosopher's Stone alchemists were concerned with: because such problems are the result of bizarre fantasies that have nothing to do with actual human existence. Science will never tell us how to forge the One Ring, either, but that isn't because of the limitations of science, it's because the One Ring is fantasy, just like ultimate moral justifications and the Philosopher's Stone.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  > What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? If it turns out that there is an ultimate ought, then finding that out seems very likely to contribute to doing what I ought to do. If there isn't, then by thinking about it I am wasting no resources that I ought to be spending elsewhere. :) We don't necessarily disagree on whether ultimate moral justifications exist, I think.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Don't be silly: of course there's such a thing as ultimate moral justification. It just doesn't come from the meta-ethical theories most people were raised with, these being divine command (deontological, duty-based) and divine blessing (consequentialist, value-based), both of which indoctrinate people to believe morality requires metaphysical magic sauce be poured over normal things to turn them from normal (is) to normatively relevant (ought).

maroonblazer 12y ago

"looking at what other entities do doesn't provide any answer to what you ought to do." It doesn't? If my neighbor rises early, works hard and seems happier than me, whereas I spend all day in bed and feel depressed, doing what he's doing isn't a bad place to start.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? Advocates of the importance of the is-ought problem want us to be deeply concerned about it, but they never explain why we ought to be. And in fact, we ought not be worried about it whether it is solved, unsolved or unsolvable: Once we identify what it is in our nature that makes solving the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we will have solved the is-ought problem and it will no longer be a problem we ought to be worried about. Until we have identified what it is in our nature that makes the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we have no reason to consider it a problem we ought to be worried about. QED For myself, I think the is-ought problem is ill-posed in its traditional "ultimate moral justification" form and trivially easy in any sensible form that acknowledges the vast amount of stuff Hume didn't know, like evolutionary biology. The sensible form doesn't solve the ultimate-moral-justification question Hume was concerned with for the same reason chemists never solved the creation of the Philosopher's Stone alchemists were concerned with: because such problems are the result of bizarre fantasies that have nothing to do with actual human existence. Science will never tell us how to forge the One Ring, either, but that isn't because of the limitations of science, it's because the One Ring is fantasy, just like ultimate moral justifications and the Philosopher's Stone.

randallsquared 12y ago
> What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? If it turns out that there is an ultimate ought, then finding that out seems very likely to contribute to doing what I ought to do. If there isn't, then by thinking about it I am wasting no resources that I ought to be spending elsewhere. :) We don't necessarily disagree on whether ultimate moral justifications exist, I think.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Don't be silly: of course there's such a thing as ultimate moral justification. It just doesn't come from the meta-ethical theories most people were raised with, these being divine command (deontological, duty-based) and divine blessing (consequentialist, value-based), both of which indoctrinate people to believe morality requires metaphysical magic sauce be poured over normal things to turn them from normal (is) to normatively relevant (ought).