Alonzo Fyfe

The theory is concerned with what people ought to do.

However, it determines the meaning of the word 'ought' by looking at how people actually use the word. That is to say, it does so by asking, "What DO people mean by the word 'ought'?"

Once we know the meaning of 'ought', we can look into determining its reference, if any.

The AntiChris

So, if you've accurately determined what we mean by "ought", your theory should reflect how people actually do make moral judgements?

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

Yes.

But, one must be careful.

If, a philosopher of science accurately determined what we mean by "theory", that theory of "theory" would reflect how scientists actually do science. And, yet, that theory must also account for the fact that what scientists do is distinguish good theories from bad theories, and that what scientists do is distinguish between good and bad ways of distinguishing between good and bad theories.

So, just as a theory of "theory" is not merely a ledger of actions performed by scientists, a theory of "ought" is not merely a ledger of actions performed by moralists.

The AntiChris

In the case of "theories of scientific theories" I suppose we can distinguish good and bad theories by reference to how well they aid the purposes of scientific endeavour. The point being that there's a pretty unambiguous consensus on what we all think the "purpose of scientific endeavour" is really about.

I'm not sure we can say the same about the "purpose of morality".

What is your reference point for distinguishing good and bad theories of ought? Earlier you said:
But without a reference point, how do you determine which meaning of 'ought' you use to determine "its reference".

This seems to be going round in circles.

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

I do not see any reason for the criteria for "good and bad theories of 'ought'" to be any different from the criteria for "good and bad theories" in general. Consistency, coherence, best ability to explain and predict a particular set of observations, etc.


Many terms have 'meaning' without any 'reference' at all -- words such as 'ghost', 'unicorn', 'Santa Clause', 'god', 'intrinsic value'. The existence of words with 'meaning' but no 'reference' shows that you do not need to have a 'reference' to study 'meaning'.

You determine 'meaning' by looking at how a word is used. Then, once you know what a word means, you need to look out into the world to find which things in the world (if anything) meet that criteria.

You can determine many of the properties of "the tooth fairy" by looking at the meaning of this phrase, but one thing you cannot determine merely by looking at the meaning is whether the tooth fairy exists (or, in other words, whether the phrase 'a tooth fairy' has a reference).

The AntiChris

The point I was getting at was that people use "ought" in many different senses and often interchangeably. In other words, "ought" has many different "meanings". It seems to me that you need a reference in order to select or give weight to these meanings when formulating your theory.

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

Yes, it does have different meanings. There is, for example, an important difference between 'practical ought' and 'moral ought'. One of the chapters is devoted to different meanings of 'ought' -- how they are the same, and how they differ -- before focusing on moral 'ought'.

Now, one must be careful to distinguish cases where people are using different meanings of the word 'ought', and when they are using the same meaning but disagree on its reference. If the meanings differ, then the statements "X ought(1) Y" and "X ought(2) not Y" are not contradictory -- both can be true at the same time. If the meanings are the same and the references differ, then "X ought(1) Y" and "X ought(1) not Y" are contradictory.

Because statements of the form:

"Church and state ought to be separate"

and

"Church and state ought not to be separate"

are taken to be contradictory statements, we have reason to infer that 'ought' in instances such as this have one meaning, and the dispute is over its reference (whether 'ought' refers to separation of church and state, or 'ought not' refers to separation of church and state).

Deke

My theory is a crazy one. We are an animal species living on a planet with limited resources. Like all animals, we are interested in surviving. Morality is the first story we teach our children; this story tells them how the individual should behave such that the group survives. We have many groups, so morality differs from one group to the next. But overall, we still are one species, and so there are certain fundamental characteristics to the varied human stories of morality. Ironically, these fundamentals (which are no different than in most animal species), are held up by certain people as evidence for a superbeing who must have decreed them for humankind.

But anyway, at least one significant question this theory cannot answer is: “why are all living species interested in surviving?” I mean mountains don’t seem to fight for survival, they just are. Yet plants, bacteria, and lemurs do whatever they can to persist, why?

Deke

kctan

Morality is what your self-interest says it is. Subjected to the whims of your emotions of course.

Do you seriously believe you'll stand by your 'standard' of morality each time in every event ? Do you seriously believe every word you say about every event or every subject is sincere ? If you can't then welcome to my club. Talk is good, it's when you need to show, that's when things start going down hill.