is/ought, final answer

[bahman]

Those of you who believe my answer to be insufficient, by which criteria? If yours exude any possible answer, or any currently available for discussion, you cannot be doing philosophy because your search for truth has an arbitrary end.

There is a big gap between is and ought given the definition of both.

My answer specifically addresses that gap in the semantic sense.

I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=495348 time=1612906322 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495347 time=1612905270 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=495346 time=1612904563 user_id=12593]

There is a big gap between is and ought given the definition of both.
[/quote]

My answer specifically addresses that gap in the semantic sense.
[/quote]
I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?
[/quote]

Existence qua existence has nothing to do with it. Ethics only exist in the minds of congnizant beings. Animals don't have any. Therefore, regardless of what ethics are in particular, they are clearly mind-bound, and therefore MUST come from mental constructs. There is literally no other option. There is only one possible source for ethics. Ethics is always purpose-dependent. There is literally no other option. Ethics is always a balancing act of two or more people's rights, there is literally no other option.

I cannot get an OUGHT from existence itself, and neither can anyone else. You've chosen an irrelevant IS.

[bahman]

My answer specifically addresses that gap in the semantic sense.

I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?

Existence qua existence has nothing to do with it.

Existence has to do with correctness.

Ethics only exist in the minds of cognizant beings.

Do you mean rational beings?

Animals don't have any.

Yes, animals are not rational but they are a part of the equation (how we/humans should treat animals).

Therefore, regardless of what ethics are in particular, they are clearly mind-bound, and therefore MUST come from mental constructs. There is literally no other option.

I agree. The problem however is how you make a relation between is and ought. Noone telling you whether ethics is not a mental concept here.

There is only one possible source for ethics.

Yes, and the source is mental.

Ethics is always purpose-dependent. There is literally no other option.

I think that ethics depends on two principles, feelings and thoughts. Feelings move us while thought put constraints on feelings and give us directions.

Ethics is always a balancing act of two or more people's rights, there is literally no other option.

How do you find a balanced solution? What are your criteria?

I cannot get an OUGHT from existence itself, and neither can anyone else. You've chosen an irrelevant IS.

I can.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a big gap between is and ought given the definition of both.

My answer specifically addresses that gap in the semantic sense.

I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?

The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.

Here is one critical thread

'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737

• 'Ought' is 'Is'
  Here is the argument and explanation;
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
  The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
  However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
  
  When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
  The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
  
  Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
  
  Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
  
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

[FlashDangerpants]

>You suppose incorrectly, brevity is good. But understanding the problem before announcing that you've fixed it with the specious contents of a fortune cookie is better still.

The best wisdom is that which is as simple as possible, but no simpler. Are you saying my answer is insufficient? In what particular respect?

>If you understood it properly, the is/ought thing is just an observation about the logical relationship between facts and values. It's not really a problem that needs a solution.

It's a problem at least that people don't understand the logical relationship.

Yes it's insufficient, it doesn't address the issue at all and shows zero understanding of the problem.

"The world has to exist for anything to be right and wrong in it" doesn't address a distinction of hard type between a statement of fact such as "many people enjoy Coldplay more than they enjoy Mozart" and one of value such as "Mozart is worse that Coldplay". Perhaps coldplay must indeed exist in some form, and so must Mozart for there to be one that is better than the other, but the facts have no particular bearing on the value.

Your argument is worthless, it didn't deserve as much explanatory action as I have now given it.

[FlashDangerpants]

• 'Ought' is 'Is'
  Here is the argument and explanation;
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

circular at P2

[bahman]

My answer specifically addresses that gap in the semantic sense.

I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?

The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.

Here is one critical thread

'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737

• 'Ought' is 'Is'
  Here is the argument and explanation;
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
  The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
  However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
  
  When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
  The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
  
  Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
  
  Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
  
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.

[Terrapin Station]

>That's inventing a novel distinction between morality/ethics simply because they're two different words.

The distinction is real, and matters, as indicated in this conversation and many others. Since the word "ethics" already tends to be used for professional and explicit purposes, mine is the most helpful distinction in language to manage that important difference.

There's no standard distinction between the terms.

[FlashDangerpants]

But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.

Don't forget unicorn_ness and magic_ness, both of those are now ISes too.

[Terrapin Station]

I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Ought: used to indicate the correctness of an action.
Is: exist.
How does the very fact that we exist leads to what is correct to do?

The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.

Here is one critical thread

'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737

• 'Ought' is 'Is'
  Here is the argument and explanation;
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
  The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
  However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
  
  When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
  The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
  
  Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
  
  Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
  
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.

His C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."

The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.

[bahman]

The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.

Here is one critical thread

'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737

• 'Ought' is 'Is'
  Here is the argument and explanation;
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
  The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
  However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
  
  When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
  The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
  
  Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
  
  Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
  
  • P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
    P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
    C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
    C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.

His C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."

Think or feel?

The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.

C2 is right if C1 is right.

[Peter Holmes]

His C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."

I think there could be a confusion here. What is the case is that people use 'ought' and 'should' in assertions. That is a fact - a feature of reality. But that doesn't mean that 'oughts' and 'shoulds' - or 'oughtness' and 'shouldness' are 'existent phenomena' - features of reality. And that's what VA means.

[Terrapin Station]

Think or feel?

It's mental content they have due to a disposition they have. We can call any mental content that's in the form of a sentence a "thought"--that's a common way to use the word "thought," and our dispositions, when conscious at least, are types of feelings.

The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.

C2 is right if C1 is right.

No. A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y." We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.

That anything is the case doesn't imply that it should be the case.

[Skepdick]

A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y."

Why not?

The implication exists in imperative logic.

We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.

No, it isn't. It's a statement reporting that I am thinking about acting upon my intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic

Are you going to be prescriptive and forbid me from imperative languages? Go fuck yourself.

[bahman]

Think or feel?

It's mental content they have due to a disposition they have. We can call any mental content that's in the form of a sentence a "thought"--that's a common way to use the word "thought," and our dispositions, when conscious at least, are types of feelings.

The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.

C2 is right if C1 is right.

No. A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y." We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.

That anything is the case doesn't imply that it should be the case.

Are you saying that what you are trying to say is not objectively true and it is only your opinion (considering the bold part)?