is/ought, final answer

[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.

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)?

It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

[bahman]

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.



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)?

It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

I cannot follow you.

[Advocate]

>>P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.

>circular at P2

By that criteria literally everything is circular because everything refers to and exists in context with the rest of the universe. You can throw that criteria right out, because it's not even potentially useful thinking.

[Advocate]

>It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

The only way thinking about ethics does not imply actual ethics is if ethics can exist independently from our thoughts, which is plainly false. Right and wrong are clearly mind-bound ideas and thinking about them, while insufficient, is obviously necessary. Not all thinking is ethics, but all ethics requires thinking about what we ought to do.

Bonus: Absence of evidence implies evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find evidence.

[bahman]

>It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

The only way thinking about ethics does not imply actual ethics is if ethics can exist independently from our thoughts, which is plainly false. Right and wrong are clearly mind-bound ideas and thinking about them, while insufficient, is obviously necessary. Not all thinking is ethics, but all ethics requires thinking about what we ought to do.

Bonus: Absence of evidence implies evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find evidence.

The objective in the case of morality means opinion independent.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=495484 time=1612968267 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495479 time=1612967105 user_id=15238]
>It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

The only way thinking about ethics does not imply actual ethics is if ethics can exist independently from our thoughts, which is plainly false. Right and wrong are clearly mind-bound ideas and thinking about them, while insufficient, is obviously necessary. Not all thinking is ethics, but all ethics requires thinking about what we ought to do.

Bonus: Absence of evidence implies evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find evidence.
[/quote]
The objective in the case of morality means opinion independent.
[/quote]

Morality IS a thought construct so it's literally impossible for it to be opinion independent. That would mean a priori knowledge - that it exists in some form before it is created, which likewise isn't possible.

Absolute objectivity never exists in any sense that matters, because caring is always subjective, and if you don't care, it doesn't matter.

[Advocate]

If i want to wake up an hour before dawn, that's an amoral decision. If my roommate wants to sleep until 8, it becomes a moral decision - when two people's desires are in conflict, whether or not they're needs, there is a best way to settle the argument, irrespective of whether we yet know what that way is.

Moral absolutes are things like "Killing everyone is incompatible with ethics.
Moral truths are things like "If you spit in their face, it's going to be harder to build a nation with them. (not inherently true, but apparently true for all intents and purpose and always provides epistemological warrant in lieu of any evidence to the contrary)

Both things actually exist and actually do real world work. If you want to contend anything that implies otherwise you're simply on the wrong track to understand OUGHTs.

[Terrapin Station]

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

It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

I cannot follow you.

Sure. So the first part: it's an objective fact that "Joe thinks that 'x ought to y'" doesn't imply "X ought to y."

Is that first part clear? (Otherwise I can try to explain it better.)

[FlashDangerpants]

>>P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.

>circular at P2

By that criteria literally everything is circular because everything refers to and exists in context with the rest of the universe. You can throw that criteria right out, because it's not even potentially useful thinking.

Where in the universe can you point to an existence of an ought? The reason why you can't is because oughts are not an empirically observable object type. That much should be simple enough even for you to grasp, so what would be hte basis for that P2?

If you need the conclusion of an argument to establish the truth of one of the premises, your argument is circular, that's very fucking basic logic that I would not expect to find myself needing to explain to the greatest philosopher of all time, which apparently is supposed to be you.

[bahman]

>It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

The only way thinking about ethics does not imply actual ethics is if ethics can exist independently from our thoughts, which is plainly false. Right and wrong are clearly mind-bound ideas and thinking about them, while insufficient, is obviously necessary. Not all thinking is ethics, but all ethics requires thinking about what we ought to do.

Bonus: Absence of evidence implies evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find evidence.

The objective in the case of morality means opinion independent.

Morality IS a thought construct so it's literally impossible for it to be opinion independent. That would mean a priori knowledge - that it exists in some form before it is created, which likewise isn't possible.

Absolute objectivity never exists in any sense that matters, because caring is always subjective, and if you don't care, it doesn't matter.

All a priori statements are opinion independent but not all opinion independent statements are a priori. The truth about reality, for example, is unique so it is person-independent but it is not a priori. Morality is about the rightness of an action in a situation. Morality, therefore, is for rational beings. Remove rationality from a human and find out what is left just feeling that cannot distinguish between right and wrong, welcome to the animals' world. Therefore, morality has to do with rational agents only. The only question that is left is that what is right and wrong. You can find the definition of wrong and right here.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=495549 time=1612983877 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=495486 time=1612968825 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=495484 time=1612968267 user_id=12593]

The objective in the case of morality means opinion independent.
[/quote]

Morality IS a thought construct so it's literally impossible for it to be opinion independent. That would mean a priori knowledge - that it exists in some form before it is created, which likewise isn't possible.

Absolute objectivity never exists in any sense that matters, because caring is always subjective, and if you don't care, it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
All a priori statements are opinion independent but not all opinion independent statements are a priori. The truth about reality, for example, is unique so it is person-independent but it is not a priori. Morality is about the rightness of an action in a situation. Morality, therefore, is for rational beings. Remove rationality from a human and find out what is left just feeling that cannot distinguish between right and wrong, welcome to the animals' world. Therefore, morality has to do with rational agents only. The only question that is left is that what is right and wrong. You can find the definition of wrong and right [url=viewtopic.php?f=21&t=32055]here[/url].
[/quote]

Before proceeding we must acknowledge and account for "good" opposing both effects (bad) and intents (evil) in English.

[bahman]

It's objectively the case that thinking "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y," yes. I wouldn't say it's "objectively true," as that's a category error on my view. (Truth is different than something being the case in the objective world.)

I cannot follow you.

Sure. So the first part: it's an objective fact that "Joe thinks that 'x ought to y'" doesn't imply "X ought to y."

Is that first part clear? (Otherwise I can try to explain it better.)

No, I am dumb/drunk tonight.

[bahman]

Morality IS a thought construct so it's literally impossible for it to be opinion independent. That would mean a priori knowledge - that it exists in some form before it is created, which likewise isn't possible.

Absolute objectivity never exists in any sense that matters, because caring is always subjective, and if you don't care, it doesn't matter.

All a priori statements are opinion independent but not all opinion independent statements are a priori. The truth about reality, for example, is unique so it is person-independent but it is not a priori. Morality is about the rightness of an action in a situation. Morality, therefore, is for rational beings. Remove rationality from a human and find out what is left just feeling that cannot distinguish between right and wrong, welcome to the animals' world. Therefore, morality has to do with rational agents only. The only question that is left is that what is right and wrong. You can find the definition of wrong and right here.

Before proceeding we must acknowledge and account for "good" opposing both effects (bad) and intents (evil) in English.

I don't agree given the definition of good, evil, right, and wrong.

[Skepdick]

If you need the conclusion of an argument to establish the truth of one of the premises, your argument is circular, that's very fucking basic logic that I would not expect to find myself needing to explain to the greatest philosopher of all time, which apparently is supposed to be you.

Holy fucking, shit!

On a thread about is/ought you are being prescriptive about the "correct" form of argumentation without so much attempting to lay down necessary/sufficient criteria for "correctness". That's irony of epic proportions!

There are two ways to construct arguments.

A. Starting with premises and arriving at conclusions
B. Starting at conclusions and arriving at premises.

One of those way may be "philosophical" thinking, but both of those ways are thinking.
This basic shit is covered in reverse mathematics.

Which can be literally conceptualised as "sculpting out necessary conditions from sufficient ones."

Why the fuck don't philosophers know this?!?!? It's 2021 for fuck sake. Why are you still so stupid while you have the world's knowledge at your fingertips?

[bahman]

If you need the conclusion of an argument to establish the truth of one of the premises, your argument is circular, that's very fucking basic logic that I would not expect to find myself needing to explain to the greatest philosopher of all time, which apparently is supposed to be you.

Holy fucking, shit!

On a thread about is/ought you are being prescriptive about the "correct" form of argumentation. That's irony of epic proportions!

There are two ways to construct arguments.

A. Starting with premises and arriving at conclusions
B. Starting at conclusions and arriving at premises.

One of those way may be "philosophical" thinking, but both of those ways are thinking.
This basic shit is covered in reverse mathematics.

Why the fuck don't philosophers know this?!?!? It's 2021 for fuck sake. Why are you still so stupid while you have the world's knowledge at your fingertips?

Yeah.