Can you articulate what this means?
I never see any problem with asserting that morality has a sense to it that cannot be reduced to sylogisms, but the point that is always true in most moral considerations is that you can at least put most of it in terms of logic as to frame the argument. This is probably the most important part of ethics for human beings that it is partly emotional and logical in nature. It’s this melding of earlier pre-human and human adaptations that allows us to survive in small bands or huge concrete jungles together. Or even to act alone with some measure of self-respect. To deny the logic of ethics is to give in to those that wish reality to be whatever conceived of or wished. To deny the emotion of ethics is to give in to those that want to make man another machine that can be engineered. Neither exclusive position is tenable for a human being as both lead to some kind of tyranny.
I value logic, consistency, and truth. Of course I cannot argue that you ought to hold similar values. However, I can critique the consistency, logic and truth value of a position assuming we share such similar values. In other words, while I cannot argue that you “should” be logical or consistent, I can argue that you aren’t.
He may mean Life qua Life. Which I don’t see how that’s defensible…
Dishonest. There is of course a true dichotomy regarding dying and not dying, but this is not what you or I are talking about.
Also, you misunderstood my meaning with regards to “unobservable values” (I said unobserved, not unobservable, implying that you do not know why I choose to sustain my life. I will not respond to dishonest strawmen in the future)
With regards to ought statements, there are 2. But that precludes the possibility of the third, which denies the existence of an ought.
- Man ought to live
- Man ought not to live
- There is no ought with regards to living or not living
He means that because we are choosing to live, it is inherently valuable.
Rand makes a distinction between “remaining alive” and “living.” This is a valid distinction, and above it can be assumed, now that you’ve brought up the distinction, that I refer to “living” as opposed to “remaining alive.” A good reference for this distinction is in Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand where suicide is discussed.
I think I agree. Consequentialism (toward others) is really just advice, however correct that advice might be: “You ought to do X in order to achieve Y.” The underlying assumption that the listener wants to achieve Y is obvious. So yes, in that sense nothing can cross the is-ought divide. An “ought” spoken to another person is simply a “word to the wise,” advice, or persuasion. It’s, “Hey you don’t really want to do that, do you?” By the definition you’re implying, the word “ought” has no place in any formal statement in academic discourse.
Exactly.
edit: It seems really minor, but I don’t want anyone to be confused. This level of abstraction requires precision. To imply that consequentialism crosses the is-ought divide is potentially confusing.
are there facts about what has place in formal academic discourse?
That would mean living has value, which implies a purpose to be had in keeping that value. But he said that not all ‘ought’ statements imply a purpose, and apparently intended to demonstrate that by saying, “Life is an end unto itself.”
Correct in a sense. A person who lacks empathy or guilt can logically libertarian ethics. He can do that by first assuming the maximization the freedom and prosperity of humanity as an ‘ought’. He will then develop Austrian economics which will provide maximum freedom and property.
However, that person will lack the motivation to promote and spread libertarianism.
I ought’ve brought my number 2 pencil to class. [H]
Still waiting for a refutation of moral realism.
As noted this “ought-is” stuff is just a strawman. And a dogma in hume’s church.
being libertarian would be enough, promoting libertarianism is a bonus
There is as much evidence of moral realism as there is of the supernatural. You cannot disprove either. If an objective moral standard exists, it cannot be derived from observation. I would argue the same holds in relation to God, invisible robots, supernatural spirits, and an infinite number of possibilities that explain observable phenomena.
You are strikingly similar to a theist in that regard. (should rile him up)
Wrong. Please take a look at the dictionary.
ought :
- (used to express duty or moral obligation)
2 (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like)
Of course, your ‘argument’ is just to assert your premise. Since morals are subjective, it follows that oughts are subjective. But you don’t have an argument proving that morality is ‘subjective’.
True in a sense. A perfectly unempathetic individual will feel no obligation to pay any taxes or believe in statist authority. He will also murder, rape, and steal if he believes he will not get caught.
However, he will probably not study nor research about libertarianism in the first place, unless he gets paid for doing that. Because of his lack of empathy, he has no motivation in eliminating statist aggression against innocents (unless he gets paid for it).
unless, maybe he doesnt want to do those things, and perhaps he doesnt want to do them if he thinks they are ‘wrong’ things to do. he has access to such knowledge through the reflections that you granted. if he raped and murder etc he would hardly be the libertarian we were discussing, he would be a moral nihilist in action.
That’s not a very meaningful definition. How does that cover statements like “you ought to do your homework”?
By the way, merriam webster disagrees..
used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>
four different meanings, the first and second of which are relevant to the discussion.