How do you derive an ought from an is?
You don't.
You can't derive ought-nots from an is though
>>1348310
*can derive
The moment you realize that in order to get "is", you need certain "oughts".
For example, in order to find out correct information about what "is" in the universe, you "ought" to use the scientific method.
TL:DR Hume was wrong.
>>1348325
A trick of words
It should more accurately be said:
"The scientific method IS the most accurate way to determine truths about the nature of the universe (what the universe IS)"
>>1348325
>For example, in order to find out correct information about what "is" in the universe, you "ought" to use the scientific method.
So ants have universities?
>>1348342
Please explain how you got to ants from what I said.
>>1348347
Ants survive in this universe. They have found out, evidenced by their continued existence to this day, what the correct information is in regards to survival, yet they don't even possess any thoughts at all, and certainly know nothing about 'science', or any method for that matter.
How does that work?
>>1348364
Where did I in any way imply that ants could do advanced philosophy?
>>1348374
You implied it with the word 'ought'
>>1348383
No. No I didn't.
I don't see how an animal that simply has base instincts is in any way related to what I said.
>>1348325
>The moment you realize that in order to get "is", you need certain "oughts".
you mean like Hume did? the fact that we think there is causality, ought to be causaulity, and need it to do science does not mean there is causality.
When I was hungry I had food.
Now I am hungry again but I have no food.
Therefore I ought to have food.
>>1348412
>and need it to do science
But we don't. We don't need "causality" to do science, as quantum mechanics shows pretty well.
>>1348426
That's entirely based on your subjective desires though. There's no objective reason why you shouldn't starve yourself. The stars will continue burning and the planets revolving even if you're not around.
Objective ethics are nonsense.
>>1348325
That's not at all what Hume was talking about.
>>1348325
ITT: ignorant fools who have no clue what they're talking about dismiss philosophers
>>1348426
hahaha great fucking argument
>>>/out/
>>1348435
no. just no. stop.
>>1348325
This is how your argument actually works
A. humans ought to find out correct information
B. the best way to find out correct information is with the scientific method
C. therefore, humans ought to practice the scientific method
Nobody would dispute that the scientific method is more effective, but it doesn't say anything in itself whether humans ought to be seeking truth. You secretly imply it, and use one is as a further statement.
Hume recognizes that, if you have a sort of axiomatic "ought", facts can help you derive further oughts, but there is always a starting point of moral thought that can't be derived from is.
TL;DR You are wrong.
>>1348530
>There's no objective reason why you shouldn't starve yourself
Then stop eating.
You can almost never derive an ought logically from an is... however imagine that by pressing a button, you make every conscious being suffer for eternity the most extreme pain imaginable, without any pleasure whatsoever. Since nobody would benefit from you pressing this button and everyone would suffer, it would be an objective fact that you ought not to press the button.
An irrelevant and extremely hypothetical example, but it's true.
>>1348590
What sort of retarded response is that? He doesn't want to. That doesn't make it objectively true that he should eat, it's his own ought.
>>1348595
That's not at all related to what Hume is talking about. Hume is fine with moral facts. He's not fine with ises becoming oughts.
Really what you're saying is, "we ought to reduce suffering", and that implied ought leads to the moral fact. Nothing about the arrangements of facts necessitates you push the button or not, you've injected an ought into the thought already.
>>1348325
>>1348300
Incidentally, this anon is right, for all the wrong reasons. The only way to derive an Ought from an Is, is via an IF-THEN statement.
If you desire X, you ought to do Y.
If you desire A, you ought to do B.
The universe running on causality means that semi-reliable pathways to certain outcomes exist, the only problem is that the end-state people desire differs immensely.
Read Kant.
>>1348300
You can only get conditional oughts or hypothetical imperatives, not unconditional oughts or categorical imperatives (moral ones which Kant sought).
There is nothing which anyone OUGHT ultimately do and, in the end, they will do what they will do anyway in a deterministic universe in which one couldn't have done otherwise, so there is no room for an ought ontologically.
>>1348300
there are only DESCRIPTIVE facts not prescriptive ones.
There is only what is and will happen.
To act otherwise is to "strive" as an agent - but there's no real REQUIREMENT for anything.
>>1348648
Why would wanting to do something be a consistent reason to do anything? Why shouldn't he just starve himself, if there's no objective reason not to?
>>1349001
Because I have a subjective desire to live, a desire which is not part of the laws of physics and for which there's no objective reason why other humans or animals should respect or care at all. An animal's sense of self preservation concerns only the animal itself.
Subjective you moron. The universe doesn't care if you live or die and your fate is defined by the heavens.
>>1349257
I don't understand your definition of objective.
>>1348300
All the proceeds in this world does so by the will of God. If something is a particular way, then by divine mandate it ought to be that way.
>>1348325
This is wordplay. This is why linguistic majors dominate the philosophy field these days. Not because they claim retarded poetry like this makes them right, but because it's easy for them to recognize and explain that it is nothing but poetry.
>>1349299
So your definition of objective is "that which appears in physics textbooks?" And subjective is "that which doesn't appear in physics textbooks?"
The external world itself is kind of an odd example for this, as it simply IS, regardless of what physics textbooks have to say about it.
>>1349331
To clarify, I mean an odd example of objectivity by your definition
>>1349331
Stop being dense, you know what I meant. Morality is not a law of nature.
Can you explain to me why living is superior to starving to death without reference to the desires and urges of the animal in question, thus deriving an ought from an is? Can you explain why any moral position is objective without referencing the convictions of human beings at all? Can you explain why the very existence of life itself is a moral good as opposed to non-existence when the universe itself doesn't care either way?
>>1349365
Why do you keep asking if "the universe" cares or not?
>>1349409
You're not even arguing anymore. Just answer the fucking questions.
>Life exists therefore it should continue to exist
>A lifeform exists and wants to continue to exist therefore it should
These are attempts at deriving an ought from an is. Prove that you can do this in a non-subjective way.
>>1349001
Because he doesn't have the urge to. Not to mention, there is no single unit "you" with any single urge.
Read about sentimentalism.
>>1348337
Therefore we ought to use it
Hume sucks
>>1348648
>Really what you're saying is, "we ought to reduce suffering"
Not really. Rather what I'm saying is that suffering is in and of itself bad for the sufferer (caring about the suffering of others does not follow from that fact). Under my hypothetical situation, you can't argue that pressing the button would be beneficial for anyone and it would create an undesirable state for everyone. If oughts have nothing to with benefiting conscious beings, I don't think they even mean anything. If we change the situation so that even one conscious being would somehow benefit from the situation, we are back at subjectivity.
>>1348565
Yeah, but the point is that there are facts(i.e what "is") that must necessarily coincide with "ought".
Such as the fact that we have a survival instinct leads us to feel like we ought to survive.
The point I'm trying to make is that moral axioms are not separated from the physical object in which they are concerned, i.e humans.
>>1348590
>We should only do things we have objective reasons to do
>>1348300
I assume that "X ought do do Y" means "God wants X to do Y". In that case "ought" is just a special "is".
If that isn't what "ought" means, could someone explain what it does mean?
>>1348310
How? If an is is an is except for a single facet of it that is not how can you conclude there is an ought and not instead that the not is simply a part of what is?
>>1348300
With violence.
>>1348325
>in order to
