Moral Philosophy: The is-ought problem.

[Sewblon]

In the nineteenth century, a historian and philosopher named David Hume noted that every moralist he new of would describe the way the world is, then imperceptibly, and without explanation, begin describing how it ought to be, in his own words

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

In our era most people think that he believed that logically deriving an "ought" statement, in technical terms a "prescriptive" statement, from an "is" statement, in technical terms a "descriptive" statement, respectively, is impossible. Which Renders it impossible to derive a moral principle or value(a prescriptive truth) from an objective fact(a descriptive truth). For example, it is an objective fact that "cows exist" but this statement, by itself, holds no information about whether or not cows ought to exist. For a more pertinent example, it is an objective fact that "feeding hungry people is kind" but this statement, by itself, holds no information about whether or not people ought to be kind.

Many prominent writers and thinkers disagreed with Mr.Hume and claimed that you can logically derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement, one of these writers was Ayn Rand. Do you agree with Mr.Hume's thesis and believe that there is no objective morality? Do you disagree with it outright? Or do you agree that you can not derive an "ought" from an "is" but think that we can reach objectively true moral principles by some other means?

 

[magicmonkeybars]

I don't know if I agree with Mr.Hume, but morality is always subjective.

 

[Spinozaad]

The problem is already with the "is". No person can detach him/herself from his/her own person. You observe through your past, your culture, your ideas. To use the hungry people example:

Feeding hungry people is kind.
@magicmonkeybars feeds a hungry man.
Therefore, @magicmonkeybars is a kind person.

The premise itself is debatable. Let us say that the hungry man fed by @magicmonkeybars now becomes dependent on him in an unequal relationship (MMB has the food, the hungry man has nothing to give in turn). This might be observed as a form of slavery. Which leads to...

Slavery, or to enslave another human being, is fundamentally and morally wrong.
@magicmonkeybars has enslaved another human being.
Therefore, @magicmonkeybars is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Yet, by the previous observation, he is also kind. Can he be both wrong (in a moral sense) and kind (which is 'good' in a moral sense) at the same time? Probably, but that's another story.

I'm slightly derailing as I speak, but even this observation can be debated. Perhaps such a relationship is not slavery at all? In which case, another observation can be made. The root of the problem is any description. Our world has over six billion realities.

You can derive an 'ought' from an 'if', but both are already subjective and therefore neither wrong nor right.

 

[Kimarous]

Cultural morals may vary greatly, but I think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a concrete basis for universal morality.

 

[Mr Thin]

Yeah, it's all subjective.

That answer's the easy way out, but it makes so much more sense.

PS: I found this [http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/05/subjective-morality.html] to be a very interesting read on this topic. Long, but interesting.

 

[Del-Toro]

I'm pretty sure I agree, but that's because I already believe that no action is morally right or wrong in and of itself. I believe that Morality is derived from the justification provided by the details and context behind an act(I feel like laying this point out, bear with me) based on conventional moral values, many of which are culturally universal, as explored by George Murdock in (although later Anthropologists updated) his appropriately named list of Cultural Universals (look it up).

Killing, for example, is not inherently wrong, nor is it therefore right. To put this in a widely understood context, I'll reference Batman. Batman insists on not killing the Joker, because in his mind killing is wrong. From his point of view, "killing is wrong, therefore you ought not kill" is a self evident truth. From my point of view, and Hume's, "killing is wrong, therefore you ought not kill" holds no real truth. From our point of view, putting the Joker out of everyone's misery is in fact the right thing to do because if he's allowed to live he will wind of taking more lives and for selfish reasons. Therefore, by taking his life, you are preserving the lives of many others. It is justified and can therefore be considered "right".

In fact, we can even argue that because Batman does not kill Joker in order to preserve his conscience, he is acting selfishly because he maintains his conscience at the expense of the lives of others. Every time he has a chance to put Joker six feet under, and doesn't take it, he is sacrificing gotham citizens so he can say he isn't a killer.

I'm pretty sure that's along the lines of where he was going, maybe I'm misinterpreting what he's saying. Intellectuals make me mad, the language they use is sometimes inpenetrable to anyone other than their fellows, and academically I'm at a high level, what does that say?