19
20

Is–ought problem (en.wikipedia.org)

fortist が 投稿

全 49 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TotesMessenger 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]bartoksiccan't stop the signal 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not sure how linking to a Wikipedia article is "bad philosophy." If anything, I think it's made more clear the associations between the goofy leftist brigade subs.

[–]Matticus_RexReppin' my school 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it's the UPB answers that they're pointing and laughing at.

[–]setthetrapThe IRS crowdfunds with guns -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's funny how in /r/badphilosophy one expects to find rational criticism. Instead, one finds rational fallacies.

[–]SDBPI am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Note: even accepting that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' doesn't suggest there are no moral facts. (Some meta-ethical theories hold that moral properties are non-reductionistic and that we know of them not by stringing together 'is* premises, but by rational intellection.)

[–]trytoinjuremeIndividualist Ethical Nihilist Tuckerite Egoist Market Anarchist 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm curious how we can learn about moral truths with rational intellection not based on a metaphysical "is"...

[–]MaunaLoonaThe One Free Man 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is no way to do so.

[–]SDBPI am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-con/

[–]Not_PicturedAnarcho-Objectivish 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Objectivism claims "if - ought".

[–]setthetrapThe IRS crowdfunds with guns 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Stirner claims "is - spook".

[–]darchdollaedgy|r/anarcho_reaction 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes because a semantic trick is so convincing. Well meme'd.

Objectivism is the exact kind of philosophy Hume was aiming at when we wrote his treatise.

[–]bantrain8voat mod -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not convinced it's possible to have a moral philosophy without axioms like is-ought. So long as they're properly labelled and recognised as such, I don't see why it's useful to point out that one doesn't logically follow from the other.

[–]salacioAnarcho-Capitalist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (31子コメント)

So are you saying I ought not make an is from an ought?

Edit: seriously though, I think universally preferable behavior fixes this because it starts by defining that all living creatures prefer to live and if you don't prefer to live you don't matter to the rest of the argument since you should shortly end your life if you have any integrity. Everything is derived by this assumption: if you prefer to live then there are certain preferable practices to follow such as not pissing off other people through violent or immoral actions.

[–]Classh0leFrédéric Bosstiat 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Uhhh...no. You may make an is-ought statement. Anyone may make an is-ought statement. But if you want to make a cohesive syllogism in logical philosophical language, you cannot make an is-ought statement. There isn't a "should" involved in that: a statement is either logically sound or it isn't. You're sort of saying "1+1 ought to/ought not to equal 7." No, it either can or cannot equal 7 in the logic of that system.

[–]JonnyLatte 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

So are you saying I ought not make an is from an ought?

I'm pretty sure that the claim would be that you can't (without starting from an existing ought that is either assumed without justification other than subjective preferences or resting on another ought which in turn is assumed or resting on another) not that you should't. This may or may not be the truth but there is no contradiction in saying you cant get an ought from an is because the statement is not implying an ought but proposition about whats possible.

seriously though, I think universally preferable behavior fixes this because it starts by defining that all living creatures prefer to live and if you don't prefer to live you don't matter to the rest of the argument since you should shortly end your life if you have any integrity.

All living things prefer to live because you choose to ignore the ones that dont? What is this integrity you speak of?

Everything is derived by this assumption: if you prefer to live then there are certain preferable practices to follow such as not pissing off other people through violent or immoral actions.

That doesn't seem to be the argument that UPB uses. Its more like "you cant argue that action X is universally preferable if X causes a performative contradiction when applied universally" The assumption then being that only universally preferable behavior can be an objective ought because otherwise it is either just a preference or it is an impossible standard. I dont believe Stef actually makes the case as to why you ought to follow UPB statments though, just that you are free to use it as a way to deflect false moral claims and the reason to accept them as moral claims is because you might find it valuable to do so (same reason we value the truth, science, math etc)

He does sidestep the is ought dychotomy the same way Rand does: by using "if-ought" but he often speaks as if he has objectively proven morality (either because he knows he can just fall back on it being subjective and shaming someone who doesn't have the same values even if they are just playing devils advocate or he actually believes he has proven ethics or I dont know)

if you prefer to live then there are certain preferable practices to follow such as not pissing off other people through violent or immoral actions.

lions prefer to live, they do that by eating zebras. Nothing in what Stef argues implies that a lion is immoral just because its violent I will give him at least that. Its argumentation ethics not a set of moral commandments.

[–]McGobs 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm pretty sure that the claim would be that you can't (without starting from an existing ought that is either assumed without justification other than subjective preferences or resting on another ought which in turn is assumed or resting on another) not that you should't. This may or may not be the truth but there is no contradiction in saying you cant get an ought from an is because the statement is not implying an ought but proposition about whats possible.

I think the statement "You can't get an ought from an is" is completely valid, but it's just a statement about reality which neglects human preference, or any being capable of verbally expressing preference. I can give you an ought and it doesn't have to be from an is, and there's nothing wrong with that. All Hume is saying (or implying, intentionally or unintentionally) is that you can't derive objective morality from physically reality so long as you neglect humans. To say objective morality doesn't/can't exist because of the is-ought problem is like saying "Define human preference without using humans to do so." It's impossible to find objective morality when you necessarily neglect the human aspect of it. Since human preference, I believe, is a valid concept which allows us to say, "This human is verbally expressing a preference," we can work from there, using, like you said, argumentative ethics. That seems to be what UPB is anyway. It's the hypothetical imperative which builds backwards to the first principles of the "is" of human preference, and seeks to keep consistency within statements of preference regarding the behavior of other human beings.

tl;dr: the is-ought problem is not a problem for objective morality. It's just a guideline on what would be considered an improper moral argument.

edit: i a clause

[–]JonnyLatte 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did I say it was a problem for objective morality? I dont think it is. I think Objective morality is just unproven not that it cannot be proven because "is-ought". I have other issues with argumentation ethics than this.

[–]salacioAnarcho-Capitalist -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you don't prefer to live, you have already removed yourself from the argument and should, to maintain honesty, remove yourself from the gene pool, or preferably admit you were lying and restart the argument.

Lions and other non-human creatures are normally excluded from UPB since you cannot reason with a lion.

[–]strayadviceBe free in the realization that there are no states 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is everything derived from preference to live rather than preference by itself? What about preference for the gene to live? Simply ending your life is different from ending your life in a bid to assist the survival of the gene.

[–]PlayerDeusAgorist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

seriously though, I think universally preferable behavior fixes this because it starts by defining that all living creatures prefer to live and if you don't prefer to live you don't matter to the rest of the argument since you should shortly end your life if you have any integrity.

That implies a simplicity that doesn't exist. For example your body may prefer to live and cause the mind to feel extreme amounts of pain upon committing suicide. Family and friends may prefer you to live, making you feel emotionally bad having thoughts of what they will do when you are gone. Society itself may make suicide illegal removing any means which makes it easy. In this way things are structured to make suicide as difficult and painful as possible, but that doesn't in anyway mean a mind cannot find reason to want to cease living and start to make decisions around such an idea. In fact it doesn't prevent moral/ethical argumentation, in fact someone may for example be compelled to argue for the legalization of humane suicide!

There is also implications on the belief of an after life, that may also change moral argumentation, where individuals look at how to use this life rather than just how to maintain it.

[–]Dash_Shill 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

If I think i can steal from you and get away with it why shouldnt I?

[–]Erebus_Black 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Because it is immoral to steal. People should not steal.

The fact that people do doesn't mean there can't be an objective standard of morality.

[–]KarmicApathy 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

And here in is the whole point of the is-ought problem.

The question is why is it immoral to steal? In other words why ought one not steal another's property?

If our answer is something along the lines of because stealing is immoral, and immoral things are the things that people ought not do, then our argument is essentially circular, we haven't derived an ought from an is, that is to say from any fact about the world, rather we've derived an ought from another ought.

With regards to objective standards of morality then, the question of how do we ground them is a very real question that warrants addressing. If our argument is that stealing is wrong because our objective standard of morality says that stealing is wrong, then we have little recourse in an argument with someone who is willing to argue from different first principles, our position is basically on equal grounds with someone who wants to say that stealing is not wrong because they use an objective standard of morality that says that instead, that is, they're both based on assumptions.

[–]darchdollaedgy|r/anarcho_reaction 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bravo.

[–]Dash_Shill 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

But what does it mean when you say "its immoral to steal" other than you dont want people to steal?

[–]Erebus_Black 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

It is universally preferable for humans not to steal from each other.

If morality is just about what you want people to do and not do, then it doesn't matter if you have no problem with subjectivism. If you reject this to then you a moral nihilist and aren't worth bothering arguing with.

Finding an objective standard is obviously ideal but is much harder to do.

[–]Dash_Shill 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

If morality is just about what you want people to do and not do, then it doesn't matter if you have no problem with subjectivism.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here, but I am a moral nihilist so i guess you should avoid talking to me.

[–]Erebus_Black 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I am saying if morality is just aobut what people personally prefer then so be it. This would be a purely subjectively morality however.

Moral nihilists cannot add anything to the discussion to moral issues because they don't believe in morality in the first place.

Do you really believe all actions are morally equivalent (or no way to judge actions at all). Is going for walk not any better or worse than raping someone?

[–]Dash_Shill 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I can certianly add something to moral discussions. If moral rules are just the expression of a preference by the person advocating that rule than that is an important thing to know and it has lead me to important conclusions.

I would say that I would much rather go for a walk than rape someone and I would much rather others go for walks than rape anyone, but if I were to say that rape is wrong all I would be saying is that I don't want people to go around raping people.

[–]Erebus_Black 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

But there is a way to judge rape without personal preferences.

Rape but its very definition cannot be universally perferable because 2 people cannot rape each other at the same time. No one can ever want to be raped (by definition of rape).

Not raping however is universally preferable and it is possible for everyone not to rape each other at the same time.

[–]Dash_Shill 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Fuck UPB is hard to think about.

I think internal consistency is something that it is important for rule to have if one wishes to negotiate with others a set of rules to live by. It is impossible to be sure that one is following or enforcing a rule if it is internally inconsistent, and if it is not universally preferable than at least some people will be unable to follow the rule.

So yes, UPB is a good set of methodologies to judge rules if one is trying to set up a society with rules. If someone proposes a don't rape rule you can apply UPB methodologies and find that it is a possible rule to consider enforcing in your society.

That's it though, it is a rule that is possible to follow and enforce but it has no higher standing than that.

[–]darchdollaedgy|r/anarcho_reaction 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is universally preferable for humans not to steal from each other.

Obviously not, because people do it.

[–]Subrosian_SmithyExtropian Colonist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So "immoral" actions are those which would endanger my life from other people?

[–]HamsterPants522Autarcho-Privatist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is that you ought to not make an is from an ought.

[–]McGobs -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Agreeing. UPB bypasses the problem, because by arguing, you're already engaging in the hypothetical imperative. "If you want X, then you must do Y." Argument/debate presents an implicit preference for truth. Every person who argues the validity of the is-ought problem is implicitly stating, "Let's pretend it's not me who's arguing for this." Is-ought problem denies a very personal reality, and is bad philosophy.

[–]Classh0leFrédéric Bosstiat 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Is-ought problem denies a very personal reality, and is bad philosophy.

You did it! You conquered Hume's guillotine on reddit in 50 words sent from your mom's basement. You've gained the respect of every philosopher from the last 300 years.

/r/badphilosophy is a bad place, but honestly they are completely right to be linking this thread.

[–]McGobs -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

The is-ought problem is conquered, but I didn't do it. I heard it from Molyneux and he probably heard it from somewhere else. But it's completely valid. Don't be an asshole, and tell me what's wrong with it. I'll check out the badphilosophy thread to see what they're saying too.

edit: just checked out the thread. 2 posts with 0 substance and a bot. Some dolt linked it and you agree with the link, and 0 people have anything of substance to say. I have no reason to take you seriously (i.e. accept what you say regardless of the fact that you've presented no argument).

edit2: I just realized how ridiculous it is that I'm getting defensive over someone implying I ought not disagree with a philosopher. Apparently, I'm walking quite the unbeaten path.

[–]OxshevikMarxist 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Stefan Molyneux?

[–]McGobs 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio.com, aka Stefbot on Youtube.

[–]OxshevikMarxist 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

He's generally terrible. Can you link me to whatever he's written or said on this?

[–]McGobs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope. Can't find anything. I'm regurgitating and thinking about what I've heard in podcasts or in his videos. I don't find him to be generally terrible in terms of what I find I agree with him on.

[–]LDL2Geoanarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally he's referencing this:

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

[–]BuyHappiness.Net -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

95% parents smack their infants, and here we have people who say morals are not real, and more flagpole scenarios are needed to stagnate change.