The Is-Ought Fallacy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Science can indeed affirm what is, regarding the material world but not what ought to be. This is the traditional “Is-ought problem” in philosophy. Namely that one cannot logically move from what is to a conclusion of what ought to be. e.g. 'These are my apples, therefore they are my oranges.'
example- • The 'Is, Therefore Oug...
Very informative, thank you brother
Thx. Check the video in the description where the guy is trying to use it. They are unaware of their own blindness.
@@EleazarDuprees You get rights when you get a birth certificate
@@bipslone8880 Hilarious. That is what the man actually said. I guess you lose your rights if you misplace your birth certificate. Thanks for the comment.
@@EleazarDuprees Not if you had a birth certificate at one time. Not sure what you laughing about.
@@bipslone8880 It reminded me of this guy- ua-cam.com/video/nCeZWd_QvPQ/v-deo.html
You are alive, and to remain alive you need to do certain things.
Thanks for commenting. You are obviously correct. This would be the 'Is' part. The 'Ought' part might concern whether you should remain alive or be allowed to remain alive by others.
@@EleazarDuprees There are no shoulds. You don't need to live, nobody needs to live, the universe doesn't care if you live or don't. The original question is, do you want to live? once you answer yes to that question then 'oughts' are born. Existence is better than non existence, and when you are alive you work to make being alive a better and better prospect.
@@AssaultSpeed Ok maybe there are not 'shoulds' there are 'shalt' & 'shalt nots'. Right again the universe doesn't care because it isn't a person. The Creator and sustainer of it however is the one you will answer to regarding these same shalt and shalt nots.
More fundamental than 'do you want to live' is how are questions about truths possible? You will realize logic (supreme) and science (subordinate) upon which your sense data rely are founded upon the God of the bible.
@@EleazarDupreesThe possibility of values or oughts presupposes a living entity. It's only the concept of life that makes the concept of values possible.
If one is dead, how can they achieve any values? They cannot.
Therefore life must be the ultimate value and end for an agent that chooses to value.
The problem I have with the Is-Ought Problem is that the idea really doesn't have much support beyond the fact that there isn't any prevalent alternative to the idea that morality is disjointed from objective reality.
Even if we accept the Is-Ought Problem at face value, demurring to a divine authority doesn't actually solve the problem because there's no justification to adhere to one moral set of values over another.
I think that morality is rooted in reality and that the gap between Is And Ought is just a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality really is. Defining morality as something that can only have divine or arbitrary divine origin is while simultaneously insisting that morality cannot be objectively examined is circular reasoning that I believe has neutered our thinking on the topic.
When we take even the most cursory glance at the examples of moral behavior a few things seem to immediately present themselves:
1. Moral behavior is not universal.
2. Moral behavior has only ever been observed in specific species of living organisms.
3. The species that exhibit moral behavior increase their reproductive fitness of their species through cooperation with other organisms.
4. Solitary organisms that don't depend on cooperation almost never abide by any recognizable form of morality.
These four facts are extremely suggestive. It appears to me that morality is a product of evolution, and that we can understand moral questions in terms of what is likely to increase our own survival on some collective level.
This examination is admittedly rudimentary and there's a lot here that has yet to be fleshed out. Still, there's significant reason to doubt the Is-Ought Problem. Clearly, moral philosophy hasn't kept pace with other areas of human understanding if all of this is routinely overlooked and if Hume's work from 1739 is still the extent of our understanding of morality.
Thanks for commenting. Although I would assert that only the Christian God can provide the basis for objective morality (or science or logic, etc…). Of the 3 monotheistic religions Judaism finds completion in Christianity and Islam is an aberration of both. A personal God of the biblical revelation alone can provide the basis for morality, else murder the weak (however you define them) is an equal competitor to assisting the weak.
Do you see morality as a set of abstract entities that exist somewhere? Regarding your observations:
1. Moral behavior and immoral behavior are both universal- as the Bible explains.
2. Because we’ve been made in God’s image.
3. They also advance by killing their competition.
4. …Ok
So, evolution (is) infers cooperation (ought) instead of killing? On this basis, how was Hitler wrong?
@@EleazarDuprees
On what basis do you assert that only the Christian God can provide objective morality? How is that basis stronger than the basis for Ahura Mazda, Aten, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What proof do you have that morality cannot emerge through some other means?
Answering your question: I do not see morality as abstract entities nor does any moral intuition I'm aware of. Morality (in a human context) is roughly synonymous with pro-social behavior.
There's no basis for accepting biblical morality. And my points stand. Everywhere we look we see a universe that is largely amoral. Morality is an exception to the overall rule that has only ever been observed in social species. It's also worth pointing out here that humans aren't the only ones that engage in moral behavior. Chimps, wolves, dolphins, even ants follow customs and rules that benefit the survival of their respective collectives.
Eliminating one's competition is also seen in nature. The existence of one strategy does not contradict the existence of others. It's also worth pointing out here that the competitive impulse also shows up in biblical mythology and is presented as moral. A perfect moral source for morality (itself a circular, self defeating proposition) would not create such an ambiguous moral code as a "universal law".
On Hitler:
It should be obvious that moral behavior emerges through various mechanisms in different contexts. One mechanism that is unique to humanity is that of abstraction. We've taken a primitive morality (the prohibition of murder) and made it an abstract principle. As was mentioned before, moral prohibitions on murder are stronger when related to our own in-group. Abstraction has allowed for the expansion of the in-group to include all of humanity through the western ideals of humanism. Nazis denied human rights to tens of millions in contradiction of humanist values which have become the global standard because humanist societies have undeniably been more successful than societies based on more primitive moral codes. Hitler was wrong because ethno-nationalism is simply an inferior moral code to humanism, on the basis of how successfully ethno-nationalists are capable of competing with humanist societies and also on the basis of the well-being of members of those respective societies. Well-being is a moral metric that seems to strongly correlate with survival and reproductive fitness.
@@JasonS42 Hi. From your question I see you are not familiar with the transcendental argument for God’s existence. Basically, since every statement assumes rationally and uniformity in nature, every statement depends upon and points to the God who is their source. As well as the one who made you in his image with reliable sense data. And to deny His necessary existence is to abandon coherence and objective rationality. In other words in a real sense the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. This is the basis for any objectivity.
The existence of 2 impulses ‘is’, one to kill the other to heal only allows for moral ‘oughts’ to manifest. They decide which is the correct impulse. the Bible objectifies this choice as right.
Please explain this “perfect moral source for morality (itself a circular, self defeating proposition)”.
Also, if you were aware of the idea of sin in the Bible (the thing you are trying to refute) you would understand the moral code is not ambiguous. Sin effects minds also.
How pray tell did material beings create immaterial (abstract) categories? Who says Nazi’s ’ought’ not contradict global standards? Hitler was competing for his race, so why again was this 'wrong' based on evolution? Evolution produces no ought or ought nots.
@@EleazarDuprees
I am actually familiar with the Transcendental Argument. I'm just not at all convinced by it, nor is it universally trotted out by Christians as their go-to for justifying their convictions. Put concisely, accepting that knowledge is obtainable we need to make the assumption that reality exists. God is only an additional, unnecessary, and unfounded assumption that does not need to be made and adds no explanatory utility. Further, Natural Selection offers a perfectly verifiable explanation as to how organisms can develop the ability to acquire knowledge. Accepting the Transcendental Argument is just bad philosophical practice, in contradiction to Occam's Razor.
I'll grant you that the contrary impulses can be said to define "ought". Again, where is the justification to accept biblical morality as the "objective" standard?
It is generally accepted within the classical definition of God that God is perfect (omnipotent, omniscient, and (most importantly for our purposes) omnibenevolent). So, God is subject to moral law. God is also the source of moral law in your view. Such a view is circular and makes the term "morality" meaningless. Ought doesn't mean anything in such a paradigm.
I should make it clear here that I am actually not attempting to refute the Bible. I'm merely pointing out that it does not have any factual basis. Thus, basing one's moral code on such a text is extremely problematic. It's actually on those pushing the Bible as the End-All-Be-All of morality that need to justify their claims. Why should we blindly accept the framework of sin for making moral considerations when there is no justification provided for that framework in the first place?
The mechanisms that enable human abstraction are irrelevant to this discussion and I doubt that they are well understood by anyone at this point. Evolution and natural selection explain how those mechanisms developed over time. No one had to say that Hitler was wrong. The proof is in the pudding. In just a few centuries, humanist societies have out-competed and dominated other societies past the point of reasonable doubt. This actually makes sense when you think about it. The benefits associated with cooperation between organisms expand with the number of participating members. The more members that can contribute to the collective the more robust the collective can be. It makes sense to include as many members as the collective can support. Exclusionary systems of cooperation (eg racist ethno-nationalist systems) exclude potential members and so they are less competitive, that is to say less moral.
@@JasonS42 If you are familiar with TAG (transcendental argument) I would like to see your refutation of it, because it does not appear that you are. As for “accepting that knowledge is obtainable” this is epistemological laziness. You must justify how knowledge is possible. You can’t lazily ‘accept’ it ‘make assumptions’ and move on. This is where the entire argument is. I’ll await your refutation of TAG.
“Natural Selection offers a perfectly verifiable explanation”… Well this likewise begs the very questions TAG points out. How are ‘explanations’ possible given naturalism? What are explanations given naturalism, since you are a deterministic flesh robot? Your thoughts are caused naturally just like every competing thought or causal event in nature. What are laws of logic? Let’s not ‘assume’ and ‘accept’. Provide a rational objective epistemology without the Creator.
You ask “where is the justification to accept biblical morality as the "objective" standard?” I gave it- TAG. So, you are supposed to refute it.
In Christianity, to say “God is subject to moral law” Is to simply say God is Himself… I AM. And God does not change. But I fail to see this as a contradiction but rather the basis for the law of contradiction. (TAG again.) TAG is the justification provided you are seeking.
As for the problem of sin and evil, this is your problem as a naturalist. For in your view there is no evil, there is no ought or ought not, there is just matter in motion. Animals doing things to other animals. So what?
“The mechanisms that enable human abstraction are irrelevant to this discussion and I doubt that they are well understood by anyone at this point.” This is more ‘accepting’ & ‘assuming’. At least you recognize that you cannot justify how material beings create immaterial realities. I would argue more fundamentally that you cannot bridge the gap between the abstract world of logic and math and the material world of your brain (dualism). This will explain why- ua-cam.com/video/uhkMYlAtBLk/v-deo.html
“The benefits associated with cooperation between organisms expand with the number of participating members.” Well, perhaps when resources are scarce and the overlords are deciding who dies and gets their organs harvested you will change your utopianism. Hopefully before then.
Like Justice. A common phrase is “Life isn’t fair”. And it isn’t fairness and Justice don’t grow on trees. You have to make things fair. To create Justice if you will. Otherwise life will continue to be unfair. The question isn’t whether or not something is fair, but rather do you accept unfairness.
And of course, moral discourse ensues. Fairness vs wants vs needs vs subjectivity vs losing to give to others. But hey. Life’s not fair 🫠
Thanks for commenting. It is an interesting mind shift from complaining and murmuring about the evil in the world versus taking responsibility to change it.
@@EleazarDuprees Yes! I thought you bringing up “Is-Ought” was what I don’t hear often. A tendency to label things black and white as if they have to be a certain way and it’s somehow our duty or obligation to obey and maintain it rather than shifting our perspectives, making necessary changes, and talking obstacles head-on.
I will have to put The Devil’s Delusion on my reading list. I don’t know about militant atheism, I’m sure of atheism and anti-theism, militant seems a little pointed, but it’d be intriguing to read a secular mathematician’s take on the subject of religious thought, especially with the points you’ve chosen to highlight.
Is and Ought might have logical meaning in a confined, academic sense. The problem is that within the Is-Ought proposition one is embedded in, or implies the other -there are facts and opinions, but in the supposed contrast between Reason (Is) and Emotion (Ought) one cannot exist without the other, for even in the case of the Is argument, it only makes sense if it refers to a fixed reality, while philosophy cannot establish that anything has fixed meaning, only that meaning is derived from a consensus on the meaning of words -thus, a Red Ball is Red only because we recognize the properties Red and Ball, it does not confirm the existence of either Red or a Ball. If we decide that poverty is not the Natural condition of humankind, and establish it as a scientific fact, the proposition that we ought to end poverty is derived from the Is, it does not even amount to a form of relativism. That poverty exists because human societies tolerate it is an example of Emotion, but that it might also be a fact, the consequence of measuring income, expenditure, etc, means the Is and the Ought cannot be disentangled, though Libertarians believe they can do this, because they do not believe there are any morals in Capitalism that can be socialized or transformed into government policy -moral reactions are not derived from any Is, but are merely personal choices independent of facts. That Hume himself did not adhere to the Is-Ought proposition in his book further suggests it is an academic exercise with a contentious application to the real world of the 21st century.
Thanks for commenting. I agree with you partly. Maybe you could elaborate. I do think that God has fixed meanings to realities as well as the general reliability of our sense data. Also, the laws of math & logic apply universally to everything which likewise points us the the universal mind of the transcendent God. Maybe you could listen to the other topics in the Problems of Philosophy playlist and give me your take. It sounds like you are starting with foundational assumptions which seem to omit God.
If as you point out, we conclude poverty is unnatural and then have the inclination (emotion not reason) to raise people out of it, how we attempt this (anarcho-capitalism, fractional reserve banking, socialism, etc.) notwithstanding, it doesn't follow with deductive certainty that we 'ought' to comply with nature and alleviate their suffering. Death seems pretty natural too, so let them die. Hume although not consistent either with the Problem of Induction (which destroys science) which he observed only proves that unless the Christian God is assumed irrationalities are inevitable.
@@EleazarDuprees Organized religion exists independent of God, for the simple reason there is no God, which is a human construct whose aim is to exert control over human beings in society, hence the autocratic nature of the Roman Catholic Church, to take but one example. Although Hume is not considered a political philosopher, the Is-Ought proposition has been recruited by those, mostly Libertarian, for political purposes, who see either no role or only a limited role for Government. In particular, welfare and Govt subsidies subvert market freedoms, indeed, freedom itself. The chronic failures of Capitalism however, now suggest that even the Is-Ought proposition is redundant, with Trump and associates (mostly associates as Trump lacks the intellect to understand complex ideas) replacing a Libertarian construct with the 'Nation State' in which there is substantially more Govt intervention, mostly in social policy, given the obsession these people have with 'identity' issues, marriage and the diversity of social groups. We thus see the creation of some fictional 'Judeo-Christian Civilisation' whose aim is to obliterate the actual foundations of citizenship and democracy in Ancient Greece and Rome, and replace the rule of law as a secular agreement among citizens, with the 'Ten Commandments' which are not the foundations of either the USA or any other 'Western' country. In this roundabout way, Is-Ought has been traduced, because the relationship that Hume contested is, for those Americans who insist on it, at the intellectual and emotional heart of both public and private life. Just don't ask them how to punish people who break the Ten Commandments, or they will find themselves somersaulting in excuses when it comes to adultery. So yes, Is-Ought is an intriguing argument in philosophy, but has only caused problems in politics.
@@clementewerner What do you think rights are that governments are designed to protect?
@@EleazarDuprees Rights of the citizen not to be exploited by landlords, bosses and deceit in commerce -hence the laws that protect, or should protect people who rent; the rights of workers to be paid a fair wage and be paid on time (amazing in how many countries wages are delayed often for months at a time), and the right of consumers to be fed food that is safe and is what it says on the label. Then there are the rights that people have, or should have to affordable health care, a free education, and a clean environment rather than one poisoned by chemicals. Markets alone, or more precisely, the owners of capital in these markets, cannot provide any of these rights, indeed frequently resist attempts to make them obey the law, or lobby Govt to change the law in their favour. With Rights come obligations, which is why we expect people to obey the law that is designed to protect all, not just a few. The only question is the extent of Govt in a free society, but without Govt you have no protection at all from the limitless greed of capitalism and it's complete indifference to human needs and any shred of morality, hence the occasional -when it suits them- reliance on the Is-Ought proposition.
@@clementewerner Where do you think these host of rights come from?
Habeas corpus. First prove there is a God and then we can talk about him owning my body. That said, nature certainly "owns" our bodies and we are just using them for our lifetimes and we will return to nature when we die. That's it.
The proof of God's existence is so obvious and transcendent you are missing it. The evidence of His existence is the existence of evidence. See here:
ua-cam.com/video/HFdWTDpwqAo/v-deo.html
@@EleazarDuprees yeah I've heard that before. Looks just like nature to me and people add the mythology part.
@@gregorygarcia6542 Did people invent laws of logic and math?
@@EleazarDuprees no they are naturally occurring. No Ghost Lord needed.
@@gregorygarcia6542 Where are they in nature?
A being that you cannot prove exists says abortion is wrong?? Ahh yes, & you also warn us to not be "irrational" yes yes, a VERY rational logical intellectual you are. ..
Thanks for dropping in. Actually, God is the transcendentally necessary being. Unless His existence is assumed there could be no evidence for anything else. No science or rationality is possible in your world view my friend. Be consistent and try.