/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12560860

180KiB, 825x1000, 1610168027639.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 05:54:56 2021 No.12560860 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12560907 >>12560914 >>12560921 >>12561033

I'm having trouble understanding Hume's "is-ought problem."

Does he mean to say that people base their views and reality on what they think it *should* be rather than what it actually is? Because I've been noticing something like this for almost ten years now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 05:59:40 No.12560879 Report

Quoted By: >>12560921 >>12560922

A little bit. It's actually about how people base morality on how others *should* act than anything all else.

Which doesn't sound like much on the surface. But bear in mind that "how others should act" is defined by what they or their culture *thinks* they should act. And that's when things can get potentially fucky.

??0x

??0x Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:10:09 No.12560907 Report

Quoted By:

>>12560860
>Because I've been noticing something like this for almost ten years now.
sounds like you feel for it just like he did.
I'm just fucking with you, but also not really.
KEK

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:13:13 No.12560914 Report

Quoted By: >>12560926

>>12560860
The is ought distinction is the idea that you can't deduce moral claims and factual claims are logically independent.

If I understand you,correctly, you have part of it. He was saying that (1) we cant say that just because something is the case, i.e. that something is true, that entails that it should be this way, and (2) we shouldn't assume things to be true just because we would morally like them to be.

For example, we shouldn't say that just because something is legal (factual claim), that mean that it is a good thing to do (moral claim). It might be 'legal' for the government or social media companies to spy on people, but it is authoritarian, invasive, and deceitful.so just because the government and these companies do in fact engage in spying, that doesn't entail that this behavior is morally acceptable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:16:06 No.12560921 Report

Quoted By:

>>12560860
>their views and reality
These are two different things. Your views are and cannot be anything other than how you think things "should" be. Reality however is is the "is" rather than the "should".
I'm a brainlet myself but what I think the is-ought problem is is just saying morality can't be assessed solely from facts, it's a separate thing. Like the reason why I think harm is bad isn't because of any facts or any "is" statements, in this case it's based on a moral axiom.
>>12560879
I don't think this has anything to do with it at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:16:17 No.12560922 Report

Quoted By: >>12560940

>>12560879
>It's actually about how people base morality on how others *should* act

Of course they do. Morality is the study of how people should behave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:18:22 No.12560926 Report

Quoted By: >>12560940 >>12561310

>>12560914
>>12560914
>>12560914
>The is ought distinction is the idea that you can't deduce moral claims and factual claims are logically independent.

*The is ought distinction is the idea that moral claims and factual claims are logically independent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:23:33 No.12560940 Report

Quoted By: >>12561027

>>12560922
Perhaps, but people often stop at the should part, and never add further reasoning to it. Which can be as questionable a method as it would be in any other field.

>>12560926
>The is ought distinction is the idea that moral claims and factual claims are logically independent.
Shame that people still mesh the two, even to this day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:54:59 No.12561027 Report

Quoted By:

>>12560940
>Shame that people still mesh the two, even to this day.
Hardly surprising though, since conflating the two when it suits you makes for good rhetoric. It doesn't ever convince people in an argument, but it makes for excellent reinforcement of an existing agreeing audience, and exploits the natural human tendency to be swayed by confirmation bias.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gvbmNt3Js_--zCpdQGdoteJREiItwtex (...).jpg, 17KiB, 480x360

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 06:56:13 No.12561033 Report

Quoted By:

>>12560860

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO isought.png, 4KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 09:48:56 No.12561310 Report

Quoted By: >>12561368

>>12560926
>moral claims and factual claims are logically independent.
Nitpicking, that's not quite right because moral claims if true would be factual.
The is-ought problem generally is that you can't derive prescriptive statements (statements about what you ought to do, including some moral claims like "you should be nice") from descriptive ones (statements about what is, "niceness is morally good").
It's a problem for non-moral claims too, eg. the battery is dead, therefore you ought to replace it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jan 2021 10:11:11 No.12561368 Report

Quoted By:

>>12561310
>Nitpicking, that's not quite right because moral claims if true would be factual.
Yes, but factuality and morality are still two different, independent things that just happen to coincide with each other under certain circumstances. Kind of like how a plate of food can be considered one meal, but the individual foods on it are still their own distinct, independent entities who just happen to compliment each other.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches