Is ought dichotomy, does it mean anything?

Standard doctrine says since David Hume:you can not get an 'ought'(prescription) from an 'IS' (some objective fact in reality), you can only get from an 'IF' to an 'ought'.
But is an 'if' not just an 'is'? Is a goal in someone's head not also an objective fact of reality?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• David Hume
• is ought dichotomy

[modelmark]

@erhnamdj exactly

[erhnamdj]

@modelmark

Praxeological axiom (is): Whatever actions I take, I want to take (or else I would not take them). Reality is this way.

Humean hypothetical (if, then): If I want to do something, then I should act toward doing that thing.

That is an 'is' that is the same as an 'if, then.' An ought has just been derived from an 'is,' because the 'is' is the same as the 'if, then.'

Do I have that right?

[modelmark]

@erhnamdj I agree. But the IF could be:If I want to get a tattoo somewhere next month, I ought to start saving next week.

I agree there are some practical (and theoretical) difficulties, although you can already verify if people have e.g. racial biases without a scanner:hidden association test.With a scanner you can probably verify musical preferences already. But the practical limitations are besides the point. The IF, is an IS, goodbye Hume

[modelmark]

@SBRslacker00 yes, so the is => is => ought relation has nothing to do with ethics. If your goal is to learn to play the piano, you ought to practice. The 'IF' is however an 'is' or an objective fact in reality. You either have it as your goal, or you don't. Can stil be interpersonal:if you want to make your wife happy, you ought to bring her flowers.

Ethics is if you try to define a set of 'oughts' that could be valid for everyone. Any subjugation can not be part of this universal set of oughts

[erhnamdj]

@erhnamdj Furthermore, I don't know of any way to control for the fact that the brain is aware of time. I may want a tattoo, but I know I can change my mind, even while I am traveling to the tattoo parlor. My desire is not absolute, and I am subject to outside influence. The brain is not a closed system. Maybe something causes me to change my preference. And when I act, I know this might happen. The brain scan cannot take this into account.

[erhnamdj]

@modelmark I am thinking of Rothbard's principle of Demonstrated Preference.

If I want a tattoo, then--if I am not currently in the process of receiving the tattoo--we can know that I want it less than whatever I am doing now. Because I am not currently receiving the tattoo.

I don't think there is a way to perform a brain scan and determine someone's desires. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to all of the atoms in the brain, meaning your scan cannot be exact, and chaos applies.

[SBRslacker00]

@modelmark

Ok, I think I understand. You're talking about an atomized constellation of personalized 'oughts'. We're really talking about ought(1), ought(2), ..., ought(n). I think this an accurate description of reality, even if it's a redefinition of the typical notion definition of 'ought' which is more of a signpost for universal or interpersonal prescription or obligation due to a preexisting social context of typical values. For your concept of 'ought', I tend to use the word 'value'.

[modelmark]

@SBRslacker00 there is no central brain who plans what other brains think. There is no 'brain which gets to decide'. If the murderer wants to murder, he ought to go though some objectively rational steps (getting a weapon, etc.) I think he ought not to murder and I have to go through some steps to reach that goal. The victim probably does not want to be murdered, some oughts follow from that as well.

IF your goal is a universal system of oughts, they can not contain subjugation.

[modelmark]

@SBRslacker00 the goal comes from nature and nurture acting on the individuals brain, form the observations with the senses he did in his past. You can not construct a goal for a group, since a group is not an acting entity. A group can not turn left, while all of the individual in the group turn right.

If it is your goal to construct a system of ethics that is universal for all members, then you ought to go through some rational steps that end up with the NAP imho.

[SBRslacker00]

@modelmark

'It formed itself in the brain ...'

Which brain gets to decide? When conflict arises, which side wins or what compromise is made? I'm trying to pinpoint where your ultimate 'ought' comes from. Just because a murderer's brain wants to murder doesn't mean that he 'ought' to murder, does it? What about the victim?

'A group does not have a goal, since it does not have a brain.'

A group can have agreement in values, cultural norms, common understanding & policy that reflects this.