The Supposed Is-Ought Dichotomy

[Kikarok]

People who say things such as "Oh, you didn't derive an ought from an is! You used an if!" are completely missing the point. The is/ought dichotomy is oft used as an attack on any and every claim to morality (ought). If it does not apply when an "if" is added to the "is," it can no longer be used this way and therefore loses the intended meaning in many of its invocations.

[ryan84160]

@Kikarok Are you really that dense ? He is arguing that objectivist ethics are objectively true. If a normative statement is conditional, then it is not objectively true.

[LiberalsUtopian]

rofl you totally missed the point of humes argument.

[ryan84160]

This is so ridiculous.You are saying that IF someone has the desire to live, then they should do what is rationally required for them to stay alive. This is NOT objective.

If I have the desire to kill and dismember another human, then I should do what is required to accomplish this goal. Does this mean I have proven that it is objectively morally right to kill and dismember another human being?

[Adlasyn]

As always the person who attempts to bridge the is-ought dichotomy always assumes what they attempt to prove.

Descriptive statements can suggest means, but they cannot suggest a "background value system" (and isn't logic and internal consistency part of a background value system so you argument self-destructs?).

You assume the preferability of survival, selfishness, happiness, pleasure etc. - but this is exactly what you are trying to prove! - mere biological conditioning is not a justification.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

I watched this ages ago and again just now. Great video Mr Cropper!

[Obversity]

The is-ought dichotomy attacks the use of "natural" as a basis for moral judgements. That is, just because something is (naturally) a certain way, does not mean that it ought to be.

'Is' defines what we 'can' do. You equivocate "ought" with "can". Or more specifically, you use the word "options", and imply that it entails 'ought', where it only entails 'can'.

[natmanprime]

well, what else can an ought come from, if not from what is?

how bout this; what IS is a rationalization of what MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN, which is an abstraction of WHAT NEVER WAS. The OUGHT is a dynamic between 2 facts, or 'IS's.

In other words the fact that someone is in a certain position and the fact that the percieved circumstances are such, directly implies the decision, or 'ought'.

We're all following a robotic pattern unwittingly, until we realise it, and break it, then a new pattern etc.

[Obversity]

@natmanprime

You seem to evoke some kind of determinism, and if this is your assumption, the concept 'ought' is null, or even ridiculous.

[natmanprime]

@Obversity perception is a fact, instinct is a fact. Betwen the two things you are compelled to take a particular action. That compulsion is a basic kind of 'ought', what your instinct tells you to do. Logic derived from a wider awareness, a wider perception, gives you your morality. This morality is the 'ought'.

If monotheism does not pervade your every being this is easy to understand.

[Obversity]

We should do what our instincts tell us to do? Now there's a moral argument I've never heard before. And I hope you weren't serious.

[natmanprime]

@Obversity *sigh* no, read again carefully.

I said it's a basic KIND of 'ought', the morality of animals in other words.

We have a greater awareness mentally, and so derive a more sophisticated 'ought'. It's called the superego, and ours is grown more than the super ego in other animals.

Our instincts are the ID. Our perception of information from the outside world is the superego, and our identity naturally formed between the two is called the ego.

Superego gives us morality.

[Obversity]

@natmanprime

I appreciate the clarification. However, I still can't comprehend your first argument.

"What IS is a rationalization of what MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN, which is an abstraction of WHAT NEVER WAS. The OUGHT is a dynamic between 2 facts, or 'IS's."

What do you mean by rationalization? This needs explication. I'm also unsure of what you mean by a 'dynamic between'.

As far as I can see, you make only descriptive claims about our nature, and thus confine yourself to 'is' statements.

[natmanprime]

@Obversity Well, that's quantum physics. It's the same argument I've been making all along, I was just putting it in different ways.

The 'IS' =the atom

The 'might not have been'=the quantum state, the indefinite, dark probability wave

The 'never was'= the absolute, singular infinity that is the substance upon which the universe/reality is an abstraction, and therefore never was as far as time/space is concerned.

All perception is rationalization of abstract waves.

dynamic= movement

[Banghouse]

Is - Ought? (rolling my eyes)

What is the significance of having to explain what seems to be the obvious? Before one defecates one has to consume food. Is that a scientific revelation?

[Ontologistics]

Totally flawed understanding here. Watch my video : Destruction of Objectivism.

[hydralisk125]

Jeez that David Hume guy sure was dumb, I mean writing all those books and stuff, all it took was a 4:04 long Youtube video to prove him wrong.

[Obversity]

@hydralisk125

If Hume was wrong, it would not necessarily take more than a 4 minute youtube video to debunk this particular element of his philosophy.

[MrSpheresofmadness]

"If you live your life, the primary beneficiary ought to be you, should be you."

What an argument! He's done it!!!! He solved the is ought Dichotomy! Not an arbitrary jump from an "is" to an "ought" at all!

[bananabread119]

@MrSpheresofmadness

He didn't solve it at all! He simply derived an is from an is! Not an ought from an is!

[RecordCards]

I know, he also pretty much quoted a Rand book word for word in this video.

Awful.

[MrSpheresofmadness]

Do you not understand the problem?

"we have to assume" " we are going to assume" "lets assume"

By assuming the ought from the is with no rational basis, you completely ignore the problem. Why did you bother making the video in the first place if you were simply going to ignore the dichotomy?

Good job pretty much quoting For the New Intellectual verbatim too.

[Obversity]

@MrSpheresofmadness

The title of that (For the New Intellectual) always amuses me.

[mageslime]

Hume's problem was with moral ought and is. Are you just talking about nonmoral oughts?

[tsummerlee]

^ is shocked Cropper is unaware that Jimmy Wales is an outspoken Objectivist.

[horvay]

It's a bit of a controversy whether he really is an Objectivist or not :P. He is, however, a self proclaimed Objectivist.

He has some very un-Objectivist views, I think.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

To whom are you referring when you say "He has some very un-Objectivist views . . ."?

[tsummerlee]

I think Horvay means Wales, and I couldn't disagree more.

[horvay]

Yes, I mean Wales. I remember seeing something on HBList about Wales which made me think twice about him.

[horvay]

I found what it was. He is friends with Van Jones, the avowed black nationalist communist green jobs czar.

[TheAntiNICE]

Yes, in such a lifeboat situation, a certain personal drive is absolutely necessary for survival. In such situations, putting yourself first can be seen as correct. But this does not mean that this egoism is absolutely necessary in other more normal times. You should not base your ethics on extraordinary situations.

You are also misrepresenting Aristotle's ethics here. He was not an egoist and valued many concepts and things that you would consider "altruistic" or "collectivistic".

[hyperseauton]

The way things are is EXACTLY the way they ought to be. This is TRUE objectivism. The weak , die off, only the strong survive. Even nature is written in the language of objectivism: Tooth and claw, and the Fountainhead.

Vanderbuilt, Carnegie and Rockefeller ftw!

[horvay]

"TRUE objectivism"

You know nothing about Objectivism. Capitalism has led to the greatest increase in standard of living for everyone. That is a very uneducated and frankly immature statement.

[hyperseauton]

The founder of Wikipedia is an objectivist:

What do you make of that, Cropper?

[MrCropper]

I didn't know the founder of Wikipedia is and Objectivist, and I haven't checked on that or confirmed it. You ask what i make of that fact: not much. But I'll bet it has confused you somehow...

[hyperseauton]

watch?v=qxxddBY-Vwo

[AEVautomatic]

@MrCropper But outside of human constructs how is it bad?

[nine9s]

How about, "It IS good, therefore I OUGHT to do it." Case closed.

[Moragauth]

Hume's argument is a logical one, that you cannot derive a conclusion that is not contained in the premises. Taken any other way it is question-begging. So whether moral arguments are possible is contingent on the premises.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

If they have chosen to live their life then it becomes an issue of pragmatism, not morality, which is honestly all morality ever is or was. Well, that and preference.

Even the so-called objective morality endorsed by the religious is not objective; it is merely the preferences of the creator.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I think you are confounding objective with intrinsic.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

How so?

[MrCropper]

The religious do NOT offer Objective morality - they offer arbitrary moral codes handed down from barely literate, bronze-age tribes.

Pragmatism is IMMORAL, by the way. I'd say more about why, but I think the best thing for you to do is read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" in order to start getting a grasp on these issues.

Your supposed preferences about morality will NOT lead to happiness or longevity if they are wrong.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

I know that they do not offer objective morality, that's exactly what I was saying. My point was that they claimed to offer it when even if the deity they claim to exist did, it would just be his preferences that they were adhering to.

Pragmatism is immoral? If so, then how do you practically decide how best to conduct yourself in a situation like you described? What you're calling morality is really nothing more than pragmatism.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

"If so, then how do you practically decide how best to conduct yourself in a situation like you described?"

MrCropper is an Objectivist, therefore he subscribes to the Objectivist code of ethics. If you would like to gain an understanding of this ethical system, I suggest you read The Virtue Of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, wherein she provides a comprehensive treatise on the subject.

[horvay]

If you are referring to just being practical, then any philosophy should strive to be practical. However, Pragmatism is not that. Look it up on wikipedia. It's a form of subjectivism actually.

In the context of a philosophical discussion, it is important to stay away from using Pragmatism unless you mean the actual philosophy.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Did you not notice the P in my pragmatism was not capitalized?

[MrCropper]

Capitalized or not, the essential is that nothing is absolute and you should evaluate every situation on its merits. That is dangerous and deadly, not moral.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

No, the essential is "character or conduct that emphasizes practicality". Practicality in the context in which I use it means "mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure". This, in combination with the influence of a person's preferences, is all morality really is. Therefore, morality is pragmatism pointlessly redefined. As far as I know, this applies to Rand as well, as she just claims that her preferences are objective.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

If Im wrong about this Id really appreciate an explanation of why I am. Id much prefer an abridged explanation to reading a whole of Rands books for an understanding of her ethical theories.

[horvay]

The article in "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not very long.

As for Pragmatism, the fact that you put an 'ism' on it refers to a systematic philosophy of some sort. If you said objectivism, most people would assume you mean Objectivism.

You have to build principles and act on principles. If you checked the results ever time, you'd get burnt every time you come across fire. Ayn Rand says morality is a set of principles that guide human action.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

And those principles are not derivative of practicality or preference?

[horvay]

Of course they are. But you speak of practicality, you have to ask yourself this: what are you trying to practice? What is your standard of value?

In ethics, first one must establish why one needs morality.

Anyways, I'm not going to explain a whole system of philosophy here. Just look up "objectivist ethics virtue of selfishness institute" on google and the first result is "Objectivist Ethics" from the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" free online.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

So, basically, saying something is immoral is the same thing as saying something conflicts with your preferences. Is this correct?

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

No. Rand view as immoral anything inimical to life.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Rand's views are derivative of her preferences, making her saying something is immoral the same as her saying something is not congruent with her preferences. What she views as moral or immoral is irrelevant. What is relevant is that morality is essentially practicality.

[horvay]

No, it isn't preference. Is what you think or what you think Rand thinks? She has an entire philosophy that is highly documented by her any others. Have you read any of it?

The fact that communism kills is not a preference, it is a fact. It subjugates the individual, which makes it immoral.

While the moral in the practical (and vice versa), the reason we have the concept of "morality" is because we distinguish principles of how a man should act to further his life verses other principles.

[horvay]

Should be "Is that what you think.."

Should be "While the moral IS the practical.."

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Saying that subjugating the individual makes it immoral implies that everyone thinks subjugating the individual is immoral. They don't, which makes it a matter of preference.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Morality is not a matter of consensus. Things are wrong or right, regardless of the amount of people for or against said things.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Wrong and right don't really have any meaning if everyone has a different view on what's wrong and what's right. It all comes down to preferences at that point. You can say that whatever you belief to be right is objectively right, but it's not, it's a matter of your preferences, obviously.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You keep asserting that morality is tantamount to preferential deportment, but this is not so. I arrived at my moral conclusions by the virtue of a great deal of deliberation. And my moral principles demand quite a bit of me. It isn't easy to be consistently ethical.

Also, you are still, from what I can infer, conflating "objective" and "intrinsic."

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Okay, not to degenerate this conversation into insult flinging, but that was just stupid. I can go through a great deal of deliberation over what flavor of ice cream I'm going to have, but that doesn't make the flavor I decide on was not determined by my preferences. Furthermore, if you really think that refraining from mindless self-indulgence and immediate gratification makes your "moral conclusions" any less preferential, then you are very naive.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I think it is far more asinine to hold as comparable ice-cream and morality. You do know that these are completely discrete subjects, don't you?

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

That they are, but that's not important. What is important is that you're saying if you deliberate long enough, you no longer derive conclusions based upon your preferences, which is honestly completely fucktarded.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

No. When you use the term "preference," you are implying that Ayn Rand's moral principles are arbitrary and subjective.

At one point I had to resign myself to the fact that there is no God. Yet I would, at that time, much preferred the existence of a God to his nonexistence. I thought it out long and hard and arrived at a conclusion which was quite disagreeable to me. I tried desperately to rationally uphold His existence, but simply couldn't do it.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

I'm not implying that, that is exactly what I am saying. You're still missing the point.

I

f you really have an interest in hearing my point of view I would love to try to bring you to an understanding of what I am saying over private messages, but I tire of conversing in the comments section of Cropper's video like this. It's quite obviously getting me nowhere. Like I said, message me if you'd like to discuss more, as I would.

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Wow, I butchered a large part of that last comment.

but that doesn't MEAN that the flavor I decide on was not determined by my preferences.

[horvay]

Try building a boat that floats on water with "preference." You have to follow certain laws in order to make a boat float.

Morality is the same way. If you want to know where preference plays a role, it is in the join to live or not. If you choose to live, then you must abide by the nature of a human on how to live.

There are preferences on how to live, but morality has nothing to do with that. Morality is the principles we must follow to live our lives and prosper.

[horvay]

Why don't you try reading the free articles I reference? Another one that highly touches on this "preference" thing is her article, "philosophy: who needs it" which is also free online.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I see. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but who is this "Wales"?

[horvay]

He founded Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales.

[horvay]

join = choice*

[BefreiungVonDerLu]

@MrCropper In order to say that I should do something in the interest of my goal I have to assume that I should reach my goal. And that claim, that one ought to reach their goal can not be justified.

[hyperseauton]

"Pragmatism is IMMORAL, by the way."

oopps, got me.

[Obversity]

@MrCropper

How is pragmatism immoral? Pragmatism necessitates practical consideration of any moral situation, with an emphasis on context and consequences, rather than principle or imperative. (Utilitarianism is a type of pragmatism, though it has different historical roots.)

[Twiggy269]

the is-ought argument is stupid.

They claim Rand's ethics are subjective because she presupposes that people want to live.

Its like a 4th grader crossing his arms and saying "Oh yea....well....what if I don't wanna do that!? See! Youre wrong!"

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

I don't see what's wrong with that assertion. Do people who kill themselves want to live? Obviously not.

[NotThat3]

Philosophy deals with how one should live. It does not have much to say to a person who is commited to ending his life.

We could debate the reasons why would a person decide to end his life, whether they are justified or not, whether that person is best seeking professional advice, etc, but for your (AdolescentAntiTheist) comment that should suffice.

[Twiggy269]

"It does not have much to say to a person who is commited to ending his life."

Well put NT3.

What values are possible if you do not value the ultime end of all actions? No values are possible if you do not wish to live, since all actions are designed to reach 1 specific end, "Life".

Without an end in itself (your life) no other values are possible, and therfore no philosophy is necessary.

You could say Rand's ethics are only necessary if you wish to continue being a living/breathing human

[SBRslacker00]

@Twiggy269

'They claim Rand's ethics are subjective because she presupposes that people want to live.'

Rand's ethics is more than just wanting to live. Otherwise, the world would basically have 6 billion Objectivists currently living. Rand had a LOT more to say about how one OUGHT to live their life beyond simply having a pulse.

For a further understanding of Rand's ought's, check out Atlas_Shrugged and contrast her heroes versus her villians. Personally, I prefer The_Fountainhead.

[jacobins3000]

@SBRslacker00 Yes we all know that Rand had plenty to say about how people should be living their lives. The point is that her so called solution to the is-ought problem demonstrates nothing other than that the only ethical standard is doing whatever it takes to survive,because all values supposedly flow for our survival as living beings. Most people would not consider 'doing anything it takes to survive' as a moral system, in fact its a better description of what it is like to live as an animal

[SBRslacker00]

@jacobins3000

Thanks for the response. I totally agree.

All she's really doing is setting up maybe the biggest fallacy in her entire philosophy, the survival morality. She 'proves' that survival is a viable starting point towards defining behavior, but she goes on to equivocate the viability of this surviving base creature with her idealized man.

What should we expect from a fiction writer except a philosophy of fallacies (or fantasies) built on lies about adhering to logic & the real.

[Twiggy269]

@SBRslacker00

Hi SBR, I see you around quite often. Sometimes I agree with your posts, and sometimes I don't. You seem to be "On the fence" about Objectivism to me. Esp. with posts like

"What should we expect from a fiction writer except a philosophy of fallacies (or fantasies) built on lies about adhering to logic & the real."

Instead of suggesting books for me to read, it sounds like you need to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[SBRslacker00]

@Twiggy269

'you need to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology'

Well, I've read it several times. I've got it sitting right here on my bookshelf. Maybe you've got a specific quote or topic in mind?

As far as my specific orientation towards Objectivism, I don't think there's too much 'on the fence' about my view. I try to lay bare my claims as plainly as possible. I reread what I wrote in this sequence of exchanges and I believe that I've worded things as plainly as possible.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

@jacobins3000

Rand never said that one should "do anything it takes to survive," nor did she say that such an action is moral. Rand emphatically stated that man should live his life "qua man"--that is, in consonance with the requirements of the survival of man as the rational, volitional creature that he is. What you are describing is Pragmatism, and Rand was no Pragmatist.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You can thank David Hume for this one!

[pookiehohn]

The ought comes from our biology. Assume that a creature in a real world only derives happiness from swallowing rocks. That is the only state that pleases him. The ought in this situation, or any, is a description of a state of being. Ought is simply a state of being that mandates another state of being as the rational conclusion.

Happiness is the state of ought fulfillment.

Ought = the "is" state of wanting anther "is" state.

Without cognizance there is no identity, however.

[frayzerm]

I don't think you quite get to the heart of the controversy.

People who assert that you can get an ought from an is are speaking about more than just hypothetical imperatives like the one you mention (ie. "if" a person wants to live). Rather they assert that moral oughts can be derived even if we do not assume the person wants to continue living. Aristotle, for example, said that humans are rational and, therefore, ought to be so, whether they want to or not.

[MrCropper]

I think I addressed your concern perfectly - "ought" requires the context of a person acting, not just the action itself in some nebulous platonic super-reality.

Your mention of Aristotle illustrates my point further: if used in that way, "ought" means nothing more than a thing acting according to its nature.