Primal

I notice a lot of people tend to resort to the is/ought dichotomy when faced with moral theories based on some aspect of nature or human nature. I think the whole dichotomy is just an attempt to cut science, fact and reason from any discussion of morality and make it somewhat arbitrary. I also see such an existential/espistemic division as superfluous and have yet to see an argument good enough to actually establish this dichotomy. Does anyone here agree or do they have the proof needed to establish this dichotomy?

Longbow

You mean, they reject the theory based on the fact that there is an is/ought dichotomy. I do think that it tends to cut science out of the picture, but it certainly doesn't cut out reason. My world view tends to embrace the dichotomy but doesn't view morality as at all subjective.

Superfluous? For starters, there absolutely is undeniably some difference between saying you ought to do something as opposed to saying that you did do something. Whatever moral theory you have, it must at least account for that difference, so it is shifting the burden of proof to demand that such a dichotomy be demonstrated.

On the other hand, you might dispute the extent to which one exists, in which case, you must say what the dichotomy entails. Personally, I think that there is an insermountable dichotomy and such a poition is grounded in metaethical considerations of what moral statements mean and the possibility of an objective theory that is a priori and completely independent of scientific considerations. Once you reach that point, I think you virtually have to accept the alternate view (modulo some minor metaethical considerations).

The Other Michael

I'm not sure if I'm clear on your topic, but I feel that when making a prescription (something "ought" to . . .) you need to first make sure that it is possible (something "can" be . . .).

So if you are saying that something IS this way, and OUGHT to be that way, you need to first make sure that it CAN be that way.

Sorry if that doesn't address what you were driving at.

cheers,
Michael

Primal

You may say that but I want to know how you prove it. I can clearly deny the idea that an "is" and "ought" are insumountably different. In fact I do.

I've seen no proof for this other then analogy and "just so". First off the example of "did do" vs" should do" I admit can be different, but likewise can the the same. Secondly, it is hastly to conclude that just because I cannot derive a standard or prescription from one set of facts, that the standard or prescription is nonfactual or cannot be derived from any set of facts.

For example: I cannot say how fast a gazelle should run to escape from a cheetah on the basis of how fast it did run today, lets say, to migrate. However I can say how fast a gazelle has to run to escape from a given cheetah if I know how fast that given cheetah can run. Hence the "should" I was unable to come up with from one set of facts, I was able to derive from another set. I was also able to produce a should that is itself a fact. Hence the analogy of did do vs should do, cannot be extened to all facts.

But see I want to know how this is proven? What makes you think morality, even if its not a science, is not open in any way to scientific considerations?

For example, if neurologists found that every time someone had a moral reaction, or made a claim about morality: certain parts of the brain were activated and certain chemicals were released, I think science would have a lot to say about the nature of morality. Do you?

Again like I said, I don't see what evidence or line of reasoning establishes the is/ought dichotomy. So until I do, I see such a division as superfluous and will conclude that all statements are descriptive and hence matter of fact. And will define the word "should" as relating to a matter of fact "values, expectations or desires" instead of defining it as something metaphysical and purely speculative or nonnatural(?).

Longbow

Just for whether or not there is a difference at all, I do not have the burden of proof. You have the burden of proof that to show they are the same. As for my contention that they are not only different but "insurmountably" so, I do have they burden of showing that. Rather than launch into a long monologue, I merely started it off by giving the two sentence summary of why I think so.

What? No they can't. Maybe the "should do" is based on an "is" of some other matter, but they clearly are completely different statements. On statement is a statement of something that happened. The other statement is completely independent of whether or not the thing happened. It is as much a statement about what could (or could have) potentially happen(ed) as it is about what will (did) happen. And that is true under any circumstances whether we are talking about a moral statement or not.

Well, that is certainly true, but that is not why I think the dichotomy is essential to morality.

So, in this case, how fast a gazelle shoudl run is not the same consideration as how fast the gazelle did, in fact, run. If nothing else the is/ought dichotomy exists in this regard. The problem with morality is that there is no context like there is in your example. In your example, the criterion is to escape the cheetah. No matter what criteria such as this that you come up with, you can always ask Moore's question "Why is that criteria the 'good'?" To be able to answer Moore's question you must do something besides come up with another criteria.

Or, in other words, naturalistic moral views can only give us moral laws that are contingent on some ultimate end. Since it is possible to question the end, this does not adequately underpin morality. And it's not just that it is technically flawed in this way. This kind of a flaw ends up having profound consequences because I can question the end with a slightly different replacement in mind that arrives at potentially very strikingly different results down the line of reasoning to actual moral dilemmas. So, it is not as though you have to question, say, that life is a very fundamental end -- you could just question whether it is the fundamental end that drives morality. And you might have a slightly different replacement like liberty, say, since liberty includes your right to life perhaps. But you end up at potentially very different conclusions.

Yes it can. That your "ought" is some other kind of "is" is irrelevant. The point is that simply erplacing the "is" in a statement with an "ought" changes the meaning of the sentence. That is enough to know there is some sort of a dichotomy. And that is what counts for determining the next step of the discussion. The next step is for you to defend the extent (in particular the limit) of this dichotomy that you believe exists. In order to do this, you must start talking about what moral statements really are.

I have volunteered my view, but my view is really non sequitur to your post. It is just "for your information". There are a lot of reasons why people think that there is a profound is/ought dichotomy. The main reason is because no one has managed to bridge the gap. In other words, there is some dichotomy, and if you want to believe that it is not profound, as a matter of sound reasoning, you must provide an argument for how the gap is bridged. Otherwise, you just have some inexplicable gap.

Longbow

Whoops! I forgot to reply to the rest of your post!

Well, there are a lot of reasons to think that. But, here is perhaps a novel one: the fact that there is an a priori deontological interpretation of morality. It really doesn't matter if you think it is "the correct" interpretation or not. All that matters is that it produces a world view concerning morality. That simple fact creates a dichotomy.

If you like you can call it "deontology" instead of "morality". Then, you have this is/ought dichotomy for deontology. And so, there is this whole discussion now that is possible about deontological ought. That is basically identicaly to any moral discussion. But if this is true, then saying that morality is not deontological is just a misstatement, I would contend. What you really should be saying is that the discussions you are thinking of aren't moral discussions.

I guess I'll break it off here, for now. The implication, then, is that it is not enough to dispute that morality is deontological. You have to prove the impossibility of such a thing. Since deontology is not impossible, then, I claim that forces morality to be deontological.

No. Just apply the same thing to knowledge, in general. Do you think that neurologists being able to see how the brain reacts when someone learns something about Physics means that neurologists have a lot to say about Physics?

That is a rather spurious conclusion. You have to adhere to the discussion. If someone says that "X is wrong," then it is non sequitur to take it for granted that they are talking about some particular thing that they aren't obviously referring to unless you have a reason to believe that that is what they must be talking about. In other words, the burden of proof is on you to show that "X is wrong" entails what you think it does. Assuming no is/ought dichotomy or that such a dichotomy is superficial is not the position of ignorance from which everyone else must defend their deviation. It is more of a specific take on morality that entails a lot of nonintuitive conclusions on contentious issues that you must defend.

jlowder

Why do moral facts supervene on some natural facts but not others? How do you justify that? How do you know?

Consider the case of rape. Science can document the harmful effects that rape has on its victims. But I can't think of a scientific experiment that would confirm or disconfirm it is morally wrong to inflict unjustificable harm. In my opinion, what this shows is that science cannot determine the truth or falsity of moral principles, but it can determine the applicability of moral principles. For example, the moral principle, "You should not inflict unjustifiable harm on another person," is outside the realm of science. But science can help us to determine when that moral principle is applicable, by uncovering facts about what constitutes harm.

The above paragraph is ambiguous. What do you mean by "moral reaction"?

For the record, I am inclined to agree with you in rejecting the is/ought dichotomy. But, regardless of one's position, I think it must be granted that the relationship between "is" and "ought" is a puzzling one.

99Percent

Ok, here is my take on where "ought" comes from in an "is" statement.

The verb "is" is descriptive. It attempts to explain what the subject is essentially. Essence being the distinguishing feature of the subject.

The ability to describe subjects comes from our human way of making value statements to everything. Its our modus operandi. Its our way of surviving and making our lives better. Its in fact what makes us moral beings.

So "is" forces us to make a true and false evaluation of whether the subject is or is not right or wrong.

For example:

"A car is a mode of transportation."

The essence of the car is that it transports. So it ought to transport. If it is not transporting then the car is not working. It is not satisfying its essence. Its reason of being. The broken car is wrong.

"The car is blue"

This example is not appropiate because the essence of cars is not how they are painted.

"A cup is a vessel that holds water."

If a cup has a whole in the bottom, then the cup is not working. A cup ought to hold water for it to be satisfy its essence as a cup.

"The cat is a predator."

The essence of cats is that it predates. It is the way cats live and survive. Therefore a cat that does not hunt is not a cat. A cat ought to hunt in order for it to satisfy its essence of being a cat. I would even go as far as saying that a cat isn't trully happy until it actually hunts down mice even if its not hungry.

"Man is a rational being"

The essence of man is that it he is rational. So he ought to act rationally. It's what distinguish man from all other animals so its it way of acting. Its the way its supposed to act. A man becomes happy when he satisfies his essence - to be rational.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Longbow

For one thing, I don't even think that's true from a purely anthropological or biological perspective. Man is not essentially rational -- he is just partially rational. It is one tool he has. And he isn't even perfectly rational nor is he prone to being so or even necessarily evolving in that direction.

Secondly, you speak as though you could not use a cup for putting say. Such thing would not be immoral, but yet for man acting irrationally -- that would be? Why isn't it just man acting contrary to his main purpose?

***

Here's how I think "ought comes from is". There are statements about what morality is that are true and lead to the truth of statements about what "ought" to be. That isn't quite what Hume had in mind when he brought up the is/ought dichotomy and probably should not be considered "bridging the is/ought gap". But, it is the only way in which an "ought" can come from an "is". And I think that neither of them is quite the kind of ought or is that philosophers even to this day imagine.

doubtingt

The dichotomy simply points out that some questions (ought questions) do not deal with the actual properties or behaviors of objects, but instead deal with subjective psychological preferences that people have towards the properties or behaviors of objects. Concepts such as morality are meaningless except in reference to the subjective preferences of some being
(whether that being be human, ape, dog, or god).
Asking whether something is objectively moral
makes no more sense than asking whether vanilla ice cream has an objectively better taste than chocolate.
The is/ought dichotomy is crucial for identifying questions that do not deal with matters of fact, because these questions are often poorly phrased and leave out the reference to the subjective preference that gives the question meaning.

"Is rape immoral?" is meaningless.
The actual question is "Do you, joe blow, the majority of society, or the god of your choice dislike the act of rape enough that you want those who do it to be socially santioned in some way?"