The Is-Ought Problem is Not a Problem

Please read the video description when you come across asterisks (*). They are extra notes to add detail to the video.
---------------------------------
*You cannot define a word using the word you are trying to define, or a
similar word, as part of the definition. This is circular.

For instance:
"A cat is a feline. See feline."
...
"A feline is a cat. See Cat."

The only valid way to define the word "ought" is to define it as goal-
dependant, because not doing so would make it impossible to create a
useful, non-circular definition.

IE: "An ought is the choice one ought to make when provided options."
"An ought is the ideal choice when provided options."
etc.
------------------------------------
**Obviously, the first statement is factually incorrect. One would have to consider more than just distance traveled in order to save fuel. Plus, diving in a straight line would result in all sorts of traffic violations and collisions. It wouldn't work! But this is just a simple example.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• is
• ought
• problem
• naturalistic
• fallacy
• objective
• morality
• universal
• ethical
• naturalism
• psychology
• atheism
• theism
• stupid
• people
• come
• up
• with
• the
• dumbest
• shit
• when
• its
• really
• much
• simpler
• than
• they
• make
• it
• out
• to
• be

[richp860]

You conflate moral epistemology with moral ontology. Finding a natural explanation of objective morality simply won't happen.

[WhiteDragon103]

@richp860 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[tomdbeevers1]

The argument is more or less sound up until you start to talk about objective morality; we derive most of what we conceive as good from the happiness we derive from it, of which the "goodness" cannot be reduced further. However, we experience happiness*subjectively, this means that our happiness is only a good to ourselves. Therefore, it is impossible to extend the realm of morality beyond a consistent, if a little dispiriting, form of rational egoism. How do you justify us all being one?

[WhiteDragon103]

@tomdbeevers1 I described two kinds of possible objective moralities here. The first one suggested that one objectively ought to seek happiness for himself. I come to this conclusion because of how all oughts we can agree to exist ultimately route to a personal happiness/suffering measure.

Indeed, considering this alone, it does mean that one's own happiness is only valuable to himself, but that doesn't make it a non-objective ought, but rather an objective statement about one's subjectivity.

[D4Shawn]

I have a question for you:

If we are all one, then why would we need to convince ourselves of something we already know?

[WhiteDragon103]

@D4Shawn Two unique strawmen in one minute. That's a record, isn't it?

[ThomThomfa]

who wants to go get high

[D4Shawn]

@D4Shawn: Would it make me a better person if I did not suffer for my mistakes? These are complicated questions. I wouldn't take them so lightly.

[D4Shawn]

@Keitaro2011: Well... suffering is a rather vague/nebulous concept, so...is a strenuous workout suffering? Is going to work suffering? If suffering now, will make me suffer less later, is that suffering undesirable? If my hand gets cut off, would it be better if I didn't even notice?

Personally, I think a good philosopher assumes nothing, and asks lots of questions.

[D4Shawn]

Totally not circular reasoning:

"We can derive an ought from an is/are because you can't logically justify your selfishness once I magically derive an ought from an is/are and claim that you ought not be selfish because we are all one."