Philosophy Now Forum

Not sure how/why your brain is unable to comprehend that obeying rules is still an issue which relates to the is-ought gap!

Ought one obey rules? Why ?

Descriptive statement: rules exist.
Prescriptive statement: rules must be obeyed.
Alternative prescriptive statement: rules must be broken.
Alternative prescriptive statement: rules must be re-written.

Why should rules be an issue at all.
Rules exist and are enforced everywhere at all times.

The point with God 'oughts' is they are supposedly immutable [cannot be rewritten] because no fallible and weakling humans can override an omnipotent beings commands [oughts].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am Why should rules be an issue at all.

Because is-ought applies to every choice!

For the rule-breaker: Ought I obey or break this rule?
For the rule-enforcer: Ought I enforce the rule that was broken or turn a blind eye?

In both cases a choice exists!

So now you need an argument to convince rule-breakers why they OUGHT TO obey the rules; and an argument to convince rule-enforcers why they OUGHT TO enforce broken rules!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am Rules exist and are enforced everywhere at all times.

That's not true. Rules do exist, but they are enforced only in some places and only some of the time.

Enforcement requires a present, willing and capable enforcer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am The point with God 'oughts' is they are supposedly immutable [cannot be rewritten] because no fallible and weakling humans can override an omnipotent beings commands [oughts].

OK. But why ought I obey an omnipotent being or any man-made authority for that matter?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am Why should rules be an issue at all.

Because is-ought applies to every choice!

For the rule-breaker: Ought I obey or break this rule?
For the rule-enforcer: Ought I enforce the rule that was broken or turn a blind eye?

In both cases a choice exists!

So now you need an argument to convince rule-breakers why they OUGHT TO obey the rules; and an argument to convince rule-enforcers why they OUGHT TO enforce broken rules!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am Rules exist and are enforced everywhere at all times.

That's not true. Rules do exist, but they are enforced only in some places and only some of the time.

Enforcement requires a present and willing enforcer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:01 am The point with God 'oughts' is they are supposedly immutable [cannot be rewritten] because no fallible and weakling humans can override an omnipotent beings commands [oughts].

OK. But why ought I obey an omnipotent being or any man-made authority for that matter?

The solution to the IS-OUGHT problem is never attempt to expect an "is" to be an "ought".
At the most a positive ought is parallel thus at best be relied upon as a guide only never to be enforced.
For example a perfect circle ought to have such and such quality. But such a ought is only a theoretical standard which one should not expect to attain in practice. But in this case the ought is critical as a guide so that one can strive towards what is intended.
It is the same with absolute moral commands where one cannot expect them to be enforced morally but only acts as a guide for the continual good of humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:51 am The solution to the IS-OUGHT problem is never attempt to expect an "is" to be an "ought".
At the most a positive ought is parallel thus at best be relied upon as a guide only never to be enforced.
For example a perfect circle ought to have such and such quality. But such a ought is only a theoretical standard which one should not expect to attain in practice. But in this case the ought is critical as a guide so that one can strive towards what is intended.
It is the same with absolute moral commands where one cannot expect them to be enforced morally but only acts as a guide for the continual good of humanity.

You mean that OUGHT to be the solution to the is-ought problem?

Sucks to be you.

All prescriptive statements are opinions.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:51 am The solution to the IS-OUGHT problem is never attempt to expect an "is" to be an "ought".
At the most a positive ought is parallel thus at best be relied upon as a guide only never to be enforced.
For example a perfect circle ought to have such and such quality. But such a ought is only a theoretical standard which one should not expect to attain in practice. But in this case the ought is critical as a guide so that one can strive towards what is intended.
It is the same with absolute moral commands where one cannot expect them to be enforced morally but only acts as a guide for the continual good of humanity.

You mean that OUGHT to be the solution to the is-ought problem?

Sucks to be you.

Yes, how else?
The point is it works.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:55 am Yes, how else?
The point is it works.

Works? You speak of utility.

You are still making my argument for me: All utility boils down to "I want".

Why do you assume I want what you want?

So back to my critical question: How is it possible for any argument to convince me to want what you want?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:55 am Yes, how else?
The point is it works.

Works? You speak of utility.

You are still making my argument for me: All utility boils down to "I want".

I don't want what you want.

So back to my critical question: How can any argument convince me to want what you want?

It does not concern what I want.

The criteria is whether the principles and methodology work or not to benefit you the individual and humanity.

My principles were,
1. "Is" can never be 'Ought' they are parallel.
2. The only way to understand them is in term of complementarity.
3. In this case, what is 'ought' is only a guide to "is."

The question is why the ought-proposed ought to be an ought.
E.g. "Why should 'Thou Shall NOT Kill -period" be an ideal ought.
This has to be grounded, argued and worked on.
For this you need to venture in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:12 am It does not concern what I want.

Bullshit.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:12 am The criteria is whether the principles and methodology work or not to benefit you the individual and humanity.

You want to create a framework which benefits the individual and humanity.

What are your criteria for whether something "benefits the individual and humanity" ?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:12 am It does not concern what I want.

Bullshit.

How so?
What I meant was the principles are universal not solely confined to me alone.

What are your criteria for whether something "benefits the individual and humanity" ?

This is the area of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:16 am How so?
What I meant was the principles are universal not solely confined to me alone.

Yes, but YOU want those principles upheld.

That they benefit others is a side-effect.

Because if they benefited others, but were detrimental to you - then you wouldn't want them.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:16 am How so?
What I meant was the principles are universal not solely confined to me alone.

Yes, but YOU want those principles upheld.

That they benefit others is a side-effect.

Because if they benefited others, but didn't benefit YOU - then you wouldn't want them.

Not sure what is your point.

If I state 'it is good to eat healthily' this principle is applicable universally to all humans not me alone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:19 am Not sure what is your point.

If I state 'it is good to eat healthily' this principle is applicable universally to all humans not me alone.

Is it applicable to all humans universally?

What if our genetics/metabolisms/alergies differ? So what's healthy for you is deadly to me?

One size doesn't fit all. That is why idealism is harmful. That's why categorical imperatives have no place when tackling complex and diverse moral issues.

Your principle is only sentimental. Worthless in practice without particulars. And like all idealists - probably ignorant of the economic externalities.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:19 am Not sure what is your point.

If I state 'it is good to eat healthily' this principle is applicable universally to all humans not me alone.

Is it applicable to all humans universally?

What if our genetics/metabolisms/alergies differ? So what's healthy for you is deadly to me?

One size doesn't fit all. That is why idealism is harmful. That's why categorical imperatives have no place when tackling complex and diverse moral issues.

Your principle is only sentimental. Worthless in practice without particulars. And like all idealists - probably ignorant of the economic externalities.

I have listed the relevant principles re 'IS-OUGHT.'

To discuss whether they work or not we have to shift the the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Are you knowledgeable in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics?

Kant's categorical imperatives are absolute oughts but they are only to be used as guides only and are not to be enforceable. They are most suitable to tackle complex and diverse moral issues.
Consequentialism and the Casuistry [trolley] approach are not realistic as one cannot lay out all the possible scenarios one will encounter in life. What is needed are principles in 'teaching one how to fish' in relation to morality and ethics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:45 am I have listed the relevant principles re 'IS-OUGHT.'

To discuss whether they work or not we have to shift the the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Are you knowledgeable in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics?

Kant's categorical imperatives are absolute oughts but they are only to be used as guides only and are not to be enforceable. They are most suitable to tackle complex and diverse moral issues.
Consequentialism and the Casuistry [trolley] approach are not realistic as one cannot lay out all the possible scenarios one will encounter in life. What is needed are principles in 'teaching one how to fish' in relation to morality and ethics.

It doesn't matter whether an "ought" is absolute or not, or whether something works or not because we have the principle of equifinality.

So even IF I want what you want, we still need to agree that we want to get to our destination via the same route, or even in the same car!

Maybe I like my way better. Because - pride. Or because - I don't want to work with Islamophobes. Why? I don't need a reason!

My point in all of this: arguing (really: persuasion) only works on people who don't know what they want and don't know how to get it.
Because the is-ought gap cannot be bridged except with desire.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:45 am I have listed the relevant principles re 'IS-OUGHT.'

To discuss whether they work or not we have to shift the the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Are you knowledgeable in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics?

Kant's categorical imperatives are absolute oughts but they are only to be used as guides only and are not to be enforceable. They are most suitable to tackle complex and diverse moral issues.
Consequentialism and the Casuistry [trolley] approach are not realistic as one cannot lay out all the possible scenarios one will encounter in life. What is needed are principles in 'teaching one how to fish' in relation to morality and ethics.

It doesn't matter whether an "ought" is absolute or not, or whether something works or not because we have the principle of equifinality.

So even IF I want what you want, we still need to agree that we want to get to our destination via the same route, or even in the same car!

Maybe I like my way better. Because - pride. Or because - I don't want to work with Islamophobes. Why? I don't need a reason!

My point in all of this: arguing (really: persuasion) only works on people who don't know what they want and don't know how to get it.
Because the is-ought gap cannot be bridged except with desire.

The CRITICAL issue with is-ought cannot be about 'bridging'.
It is something like you cannot bridge a square with a circle.

The CRITICAL issue with is-ought is also not about "I" and one's desire.
We can apply 'ought' to any human activity.
If I state, "you ought to breathe" do you have a choice in this case?

The main philosophical issue re is-ought is empiricism versus rationalism.
The point is, "is" is always parallel to "ought" and both will never ever be bridged.
According to Hume, despite the evidence there is no cause and effect as an ought in reality [is] but merely psychology of habits, customs from constant conjunctions.

What is significant with philosophy is how we can get the best out of the issue in real practical life. The practical utility of this is for 'ought' to be a guide [as a standard] to "is" and this is notably in the Philosophy of Morality. 'Ought' can also be applied as a guide to "is" in other aspect of life. This is complementarity.

The question of ought within morality is the justification why an ought [absolute] ought to be the universal ought. I am not going into details on this.

In other aspects we can use 'ought' in this example.
A hospital may establish the following vision;
"We ought to achieve Zero death due to negligence"
With such an ought, the hospital will have to establish a set up that can achieve the above 'ought'.
However in practice there is no guarantee 'what is' will be 'ought' because of infallible human nature, some negligence will likely happen, i.e. "is" will never be "ought".
What is positive in this case is the hospital has used the idea of 'ought' to strive towards the impossible ideal thereby achieving the optimal.