moral relativism

[Immanuel Can]

But he doesn't win much that way, because people don't have to start with his gratuitious premise. Most of us find it really compelling to think that there is meaning in things, and morals too; and that these things are not just inexplicably evolutionary patterns that "pop up" randomly in a mind severed from its evolutionary past.

That's an ought-to-is argument you're making there.

There is no such thing. It's "is to ought," and no, I'm not making one.

I'm not saying Peter ought to believe in morality because of the above facts. I'm saying that the above facts require SOME explanation nobody has offered.

For in Peter's world, moral language never should have been expected to appear at all. It has no reference to anything real, he thinks. So its entire existence is a mistake...and a very mysterious one, for he has no account of how such a thing should have happened at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

But he doesn't win much that way, because people don't have to start with his gratuitious premise. Most of us find it really compelling to think that there is meaning in things, and morals too; and that these things are not just inexplicably evolutionary patterns that "pop up" randomly in a mind severed from its evolutionary past.

That's an ought-to-is argument you're making there.

There is no such thing. It's "is to ought," and no, I'm not making one.

I'm not saying Peter ought to believe in morality because of the above facts. I'm saying that the above facts require SOME explanation nobody has offered.

For in Peter's world, moral language never should have been expected to appear at all. It has no reference to anything real, he thinks. So its entire existence is a mistake...and a very mysterious one, for he has no account of how such a thing should have happened at all.

It's is to ought or ought to is, they are the same ineligible copulation of propositions either way round.

Did you just never understand the is-ought problem?

[Immanuel Can]

That's an ought-to-is argument you're making there.

There is no such thing. It's "is to ought," and no, I'm not making one.

I'm not saying Peter ought to believe in morality because of the above facts. I'm saying that the above facts require SOME explanation nobody has offered.

For in Peter's world, moral language never should have been expected to appear at all. It has no reference to anything real, he thinks. So its entire existence is a mistake...and a very mysterious one, for he has no account of how such a thing should have happened at all.

It's is to ought or ought to is, they are the same ineligible copulation of propositions either way round.

They aren't. But since I can see you're pretty slow, I'll slow this down for you.

One has to have the first one, in order to advocate the second. The "is" is what we already have (i.e. physical facts), and the "ought" is the value judgment a speaker tries to deduce from the former. Hume said we have the "is's", but can't connect them legitimately to "oughts." He never thought we had "oughts" first, and tried to get an "is" from them.

Did you just never understand the is-ought problem?

Clearly, you didn't. If you had, you would never have sent your last two messages, both of which demonstrate that.

Hopefully, now you do...but I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't think you have a genuine interest in the facts.

[iambiguous]

...to them I would ask the same thing: "how do you go about demonstrating that moral nihilism is in fact the One True Path that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace"?

They don't make that assertion. They're not objectivists. They're Nihilists. That means they don't think ANYTHING is objectively moral, including Nihilism. It's just what "works" for them. And they don't care if nobody embraces it. What they like is their own freedom from moral constraint.

What assertion, IC? In fact, I'm flat out noting that those nihilists who do make those claims are no more able to demonstrate them than you can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. And the freedom your God provides us is to either worship and adore Him and burn in Hell for all eternity.

The part you completely ignore, of course.

They don't assert that moral Nihilism is the one truth path that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. They assert there is no such path. They assert that all belief in such things is nonsense...

Or so they believe.

Well, this being "just entertainment" for me and others here when "engaging" the likes of you, one more time...

My point is that if the moral nihilists are objectivists, what they assert about God and religion and moral relativism is not the same as what they can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to assert as well.

Again, the irony. They are just like you!

You assert many, many things about the Christian God. But you are actually able to convince yourself that your videos and quoting the Christian Bible to "prove" the Christian God does exist is a bona fide demonstration that He does exist.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and suggesting to others that it is a "condition". It is basically "beyond your control".

Now, I call myself a moral nihilist. And an atheist. I make arguments supporting that frame of mind. But I do not assert that moral nihilism and No God is the objective truth. Instead, I note that, existentially, given the life I lived, this is what "I" have come to believe "here and now".

But, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I might well change my mind. As I have so many times in the past.

And it's only when I suggest further that this is also applicable to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists here that they beg to differ. After all, they have much invested in the comfort and the consolation...in the psychology of objectivism...in being able to anchor their Self in one or another of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...fonts.

Right? Or do you actually believe that you are different? That you and your Christian God font really are the real deal...the One True Path.

Of course you do.

And, sure, if others here wish to engage you in discussions that allow you to simply assert the things that you do about the Christian God over and over and over and over again, that's their business.

I'm basically here to amuse myself.

And that what counts in the end is only what we and the scientists and philosophers and theologians can demonstrate to others is in fact true.

I'm sorry, but that's just epistemologically naive. There is nothing empirical that can be "demonstrated" to that degree, including the existence of the entire external world. You don't know "demonstrably" and beyond possibility of doubt that it is in fact true that you will wake up tomorrow.

Sure, sure. And we can note things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the red pill/blue pill conundrum embedded in a Matrix world. Or how about mental afflictions like schizophrenia.

There is nothing in the entire physical world, in fact, that can be "demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist," because skepticism can be employed very durably, even in the face of good evidence, and empirical proofs are only ever probabilistic, not absolute.

Right, so use this to lump together the Christian God in Heaven and the Pope in the Vatican.

Only why on earth is your omnipotent God unable to provide us mere mortals with absolute proof of His existence. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?!!!

Let's think about this.

Biggie has never been to the Vatican (he says).
How then does Biggie know the Pope is in the Vatican? What convinced him of it, so that he now makes it his exemplar of things we know for sure?
Newspapers? The internet? Rumour? A Catholic upbringing?
He even hears that the Pope is sometimes not in the Vatican...as when one dies or retires, and another takes over.
But Biggie is still sure that the one fact he knows is that the Pope is in the Vatican?
So what is Biggie actually using to make that determination? How has it been "demonstrated" to his satsifaction, that it "is in fact true."

I'll wait to hear what you think makes that a certain fact for you.

Also, I've never been to the White House. I've never met Joe Biden there. So that proves that the Christian God resides in Heaven!!!

A goddamned "condition", right?!!

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no such thing. It's "is to ought," and no, I'm not making one.

I'm not saying Peter ought to believe in morality because of the above facts. I'm saying that the above facts require SOME explanation nobody has offered.

For in Peter's world, moral language never should have been expected to appear at all. It has no reference to anything real, he thinks. So its entire existence is a mistake...and a very mysterious one, for he has no account of how such a thing should have happened at all.

It's is to ought or ought to is, they are the same ineligible copulation of propositions either way round.

They aren't. But since I can see you're pretty slow, I'll slow this down for you.

One has to have the first one, in order to advocate the second. The "is" is what we already have (i.e. physical facts), and the "ought" is the value judgment a speaker tries to deduce from the former. Hume said we have the "is's", but can't connect them legitimately to "oughts." He never thought we had "oughts" first, and tried to get an "is" from them.

Did you just never understand the is-ought problem?

Clearly, you didn't. If you had, you would never have sent your last two messages, both of which demonstrate that.

Hopefully, now you do...but I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't think you have a genuine interest in the facts.

If it is deductively unsound to move from premises of the is sort directly to conclusions of the ought sort unless a new form of logical connection between those sorts can be found .... what happens when going in the other direction still without finding that new form of logical connection?

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that if the moral nihilists are objectivists,

They aren't. At least, they insist they're not.

At the same time, they insist that their (dis)beliefs are objectively true. Make sense of them, if you can. I can't.

Now, I call myself a moral nihilist. And an atheist.

Then you don't care what I think, or anybody else does.

Why are you here?

I'm basically here to amuse myself.

Amuse yourself how?

And that what counts in the end is only what we and the scientists and philosophers and theologians can demonstrate to others is in fact true.

I'm sorry, but that's just epistemologically naive. There is nothing empirical that can be "demonstrated" to that degree, including the existence of the entire external world. You don't know "demonstrably" and beyond possibility of doubt that it is in fact true that you will wake up tomorrow.

Sure, sure. And we can note things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the red pill/blue pill conundrum embedded in a Matrix world. Or how about mental afflictions like schizophrenia.

I didn't refer to any of those. I'm speaking of normal cognition, and the fact that you don't know you'll wake up tomorrow, based on "demonstrably" and "beyond possibility of doubt."

There is nothing in the entire physical world, in fact, that can be "demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist," because skepticism can be employed very durably, even in the face of good evidence, and empirical proofs are only ever probabilistic, not absolute.

Right, so use this to lump together the Christian God in Heaven and the Pope in the Vatican.

Only why on earth is your omnipotent God unable to provide us mere mortals with absolute proof of His existence. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?!!!

He has provided such proof. You just don't like that He has.

Jesus Christ is that proof. But since He came and went before your time, you feel free to be infinitely skeptical about the proof God has already given, to not even look at it, and to take nothing seriously.

That can't be helped. It's a character fault on your side. It's not a lack of evidence fault on God's. He's done more than enough to show you what you need to know.

I'll wait to hear what you think makes that a certain fact for you.

Also, I've never been to the White House. I've never met Joe Biden there.

That makes your case even weaker. You can't even say, "Well, I went there, and saw..." You're just believing...what, exactly?

Think, Biggie, think...what are you relying on as evidence for the Pope? Be specific. Is it pictures you've seen? Rumours? Catholic promises? What is it that has you so darn convinced the Pope's in Rome?

And how do you know he's there today?

[Immanuel Can]

It's is to ought or ought to is, they are the same ineligible copulation of propositions either way round.

They aren't. But since I can see you're pretty slow, I'll slow this down for you.

One has to have the first one, in order to advocate the second. The "is" is what we already have (i.e. physical facts), and the "ought" is the value judgment a speaker tries to deduce from the former. Hume said we have the "is's", but can't connect them legitimately to "oughts." He never thought we had "oughts" first, and tried to get an "is" from them.

Did you just never understand the is-ought problem?

Clearly, you didn't. If you had, you would never have sent your last two messages, both of which demonstrate that.

Hopefully, now you do...but I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't think you have a genuine interest in the facts.

If it is deductively unsound to move from premises of the is sort directly to conclusions of the ought sort unless a new form of logical connection between those sorts can be found .... what happens when going in the other direction still without finding that new form of logical connection?

Give me an example of somebody going in the opposite direction.

I can think of one, but you're not gonna like it...

[FlashDangerpants]

They aren't. But since I can see you're pretty slow, I'll slow this down for you.

One has to have the first one, in order to advocate the second. The "is" is what we already have (i.e. physical facts), and the "ought" is the value judgment a speaker tries to deduce from the former. Hume said we have the "is's", but can't connect them legitimately to "oughts." He never thought we had "oughts" first, and tried to get an "is" from them.


Clearly, you didn't. If you had, you would never have sent your last two messages, both of which demonstrate that.

Hopefully, now you do...but I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't think you have a genuine interest in the facts.

If it is deductively unsound to move from premises of the is sort directly to conclusions of the ought sort unless a new form of logical connection between those sorts can be found .... what happens when going in the other direction still without finding that new form of logical connection?

Give me an example of somebody going in the opposite direction.

I can think of one, but you're not gonna like it...

The obvious example of such a faulty move is:
If there is no singular overwhwelming moral Truth then the alternative is nihilism.
Nihilism ought not to be right.
Therefore there is a grand moral Truth.

But I'm sure I will like your one fine, go on.

[iambiguous]

Never. Only way such a thing is just is if you're defending self or other from every person in that city or base, a silly notion.

So, not never.

Never.

Be careful. You're a hair's width away from joinin' age, big mike, flash, biggy, pro, and veg in the penalty box.

If you have a point, make it. If you're just lookin' to argue for the sake of it, you'll be gone.

Can you believe this guy ?!!!

He comes here and tells us how we are obligated to think about, well, everything under the sun. Why? Because before his own God split the scene, He provided him with the unerring capacity to "following the dictates of Reason and Nature". About, well, everything under the sun.

Then he actually thinks so highly of himself here, he all but dares those who refuse to toe his line to risk being thrown in his ridiculous "penalty box".

Then back to the part where his best friend forever here, IC, is never at risk even though he has condemned henry's soul to eternal damnation in his God's very own "penalty box". Hell I think He calls it.


But here's the peculiar thing about henry...

On another thread, he admitted to me that he was once wrong about the "big stuff" moral conflicts in the past.

I asked him to site examples of this.

Nothing.

So, when I suggested in turn this implies he may well be wrong about "big stuff" conflicting goods in the present he said...

...well, basically, nothing again.

Now, the fact that henry puts so many people here in the "penalty box" speaks volumes regarding both his intellectual integrity and honesty.

And that's because, in my view, you get put in it when you keep after him with arguments that he doesn't have answers for.

Or when you make him look like a fool, of course.

[iambiguous]

My point is that if the moral nihilists are objectivists,

They aren't. At least, they insist they're not.

At the same time, they insist that their (dis)beliefs are objectively true. Make sense of them, if you can. I can't.

Now, I call myself a moral nihilist. And an atheist.

Then you don't care what I think, or anybody else does.

Why are you here?

I'm basically here to amuse myself.

Amuse yourself how?

And that what counts in the end is only what we and the scientists and philosophers and theologians can demonstrate to others is in fact true.

I'm sorry, but that's just epistemologically naive. There is nothing empirical that can be "demonstrated" to that degree, including the existence of the entire external world. You don't know "demonstrably" and beyond possibility of doubt that it is in fact true that you will wake up tomorrow.

Sure, sure. And we can note things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the red pill/blue pill conundrum embedded in a Matrix world. Or how about mental afflictions like schizophrenia.

I didn't refer to any of those. I'm speaking of normal cognition, and the fact that you don't know you'll wake up tomorrow, based on "demonstrably" and "beyond possibility of doubt."

There is nothing in the entire physical world, in fact, that can be "demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist," because skepticism can be employed very durably, even in the face of good evidence, and empirical proofs are only ever probabilistic, not absolute.

Right, so use this to lump together the Christian God in Heaven and the Pope in the Vatican.

Only why on earth is your omnipotent God unable to provide us mere mortals with absolute proof of His existence. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?!!!

He has provided such proof. You just don't like that He has.

Jesus Christ is that proof. But since He came and went before your time, you feel free to be infinitely skeptical about the proof God has already given, to not even look at it, and to take nothing seriously.

That can't be helped. It's a character fault on your side. It's not a lack of evidence fault on God's. He's done more than enough to show you what you need to know.

I'll wait to hear what you think makes that a certain fact for you.

Also, I've never been to the White House. I've never met Joe Biden there.

That makes your case even weaker. You can't even say, "Well, I went there, and saw..." You're just believing...what, exactly?

Think, Biggie, think...what are you relying on as evidence for the Pope? Be specific. Is it pictures you've seen? Rumours? Catholic promises? What is it that has you so darn convinced the Pope's in Rome?

And how do you know he's there today?

Now, that's entertainment!!!

[Immanuel Can]

If it is deductively unsound to move from premises of the is sort directly to conclusions of the ought sort unless a new form of logical connection between those sorts can be found .... what happens when going in the other direction still without finding that new form of logical connection?

Give me an example of somebody going in the opposite direction.

I can think of one, but you're not gonna like it...

The obvious example of such a faulty move is:
If there is no singular overwhwelming moral Truth then the alternative is nihilism.

Nope.

The first clause is an "is," if true. And the deduction follows, "if" it is true....assuming amoralism is a form of nihilism, of course.

Nihilism ought not to be right.
Therefore there is a grand moral Truth.

Also no good. We don't have the "ought" at the start. We don't know that "nihilism ought not to be right." That's a contentious claim.

But we need that, in order to deduce the "is." So it's a no-go.

But I'm sure I will like your one fine, go on.

Okay.

Socialism.

Socialism decides the "ought" first, then tries to make reality conform to it.

It says, for example, "Inequality is always indicative of injustice, and injustice ought to be reversed." Then it claims to set about "equalising" things, so that they will conform to its "ought."

But it's problem is the same as in your last example...that it doesn't really have the "ought" with which it's starting: it just assumes it, then tries to bend reality ("is") to make it fit what's not true.

In fact, inequality is not always indicative of injustice, and does not always require any remedy. Men are not equal to women, young are not equal to old, tall are not equal to short, smart are not equal to stupid, athletic are not equal to fat...and none of that indicates injustice at all. It indicates how things just always are.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that if the moral nihilists are objectivists,

They aren't. At least, they insist they're not.

At the same time, they insist that their (dis)beliefs are objectively true. Make sense of them, if you can. I can't.

Now, I call myself a moral nihilist. And an atheist.

Then you don't care what I think, or anybody else does.

Why are you here?

I'm basically here to amuse myself.

Amuse yourself how?

Sure, sure. And we can note things like solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the red pill/blue pill conundrum embedded in a Matrix world. Or how about mental afflictions like schizophrenia.

I didn't refer to any of those. I'm speaking of normal cognition, and the fact that you don't know you'll wake up tomorrow, based on "demonstrably" and "beyond possibility of doubt."

There is nothing in the entire physical world, in fact, that can be "demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist," because skepticism can be employed very durably, even in the face of good evidence, and empirical proofs are only ever probabilistic, not absolute.

Right, so use this to lump together the Christian God in Heaven and the Pope in the Vatican.

Only why on earth is your omnipotent God unable to provide us mere mortals with absolute proof of His existence. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?!!!

He has provided such proof. You just don't like that He has.

Jesus Christ is that proof. But since He came and went before your time, you feel free to be infinitely skeptical about the proof God has already given, to not even look at it, and to take nothing seriously.

That can't be helped. It's a character fault on your side. It's not a lack of evidence fault on God's. He's done more than enough to show you what you need to know.

Also, I've never been to the White House. I've never met Joe Biden there.

That makes your case even weaker. You can't even say, "Well, I went there, and saw..." You're just believing...what, exactly?

Think, Biggie, think...what are you relying on as evidence for the Pope? Be specific. Is it pictures you've seen? Rumours? Catholic promises? What is it that has you so darn convinced the Pope's in Rome?

And how do you know he's there today?

Now, that's entertainment!!!

No answer, I see.

What are you afraid of, Biggie? Have you started to realize that all your own most cherished certainties are, like all empirical facts, at best only probabilities? And are you afraid to face it?

You shouldn't be...but I wouldn't be surprised if you are.

[FlashDangerpants]

Give me an example of somebody going in the opposite direction.

I can think of one, but you're not gonna like it...

The obvious example of such a faulty move is:
If there is no singular overwhwelming moral Truth then the alternative is nihilism.

Nope.

The first clause is an "is," if true. And the deduction follows, "if" it is true....assuming amoralism is a form of nihilism, of course.

Nihilism ought not to be right.
Therefore there is a grand moral Truth.

Also no good. We don't have the "ought" at the start. We don't know that "nihilism ought not to be right." That's a contentious claim.

But we need that, in order to deduce the "is." So it's a no-go.

Why on Earth would it matter if the premises are arranged with the is or the ought one first?
They can just be put in the other order if it bothers you.

But I'm sure I will like your one fine, go on.

Okay.

Socialism.

Socialism decides the "ought" first, then tries to make reality conform to it.

It says, for example, "Inequality is always indicative of injustice, and injustice ought to be reversed." Then it claims to set about "equalising" things, so that they will conform to its "ought."

But it's problem is the same as in your last example...that it doesn't really have the "ought" with which it's starting: it just assumes it, then tries to bend reality ("is") to make it fit what's not true.

In fact, inequality is not always indicative of injustice, and does not always require any remedy. Men are not equal to women, young are not equal to old, tall are not equal to short, smart are not equal to stupid, athletic are not equal to fat...and none of that indicates injustice at all. It indicates how things just always are.

Yeah I'm not a socialist, but there's not really anything discernible as an argument there.
Nonetheless, if you can show that the basis for socilaism is an argument from ought to is then I'm not likely to oppose it.



Either way, the point of Hume's fork is, very much as Pete keeps writing, that if you proceed from premises of one sort to conclusions of the other, some mysterious transformation that needs accounting for has occurred. It totally does work either way round because it's the same problem either way round. I'm sorry if this is complete news to you, but you probably aren't in a position to patronise me about that.

[iambiguous]

They aren't. At least, they insist they're not.

At the same time, they insist that their (dis)beliefs are objectively true. Make sense of them, if you can. I can't.


Then you don't care what I think, or anybody else does.

Why are you here?


Amuse yourself how?

I didn't refer to any of those. I'm speaking of normal cognition, and the fact that you don't know you'll wake up tomorrow, based on "demonstrably" and "beyond possibility of doubt."




He has provided such proof. You just don't like that He has.

Jesus Christ is that proof. But since He came and went before your time, you feel free to be infinitely skeptical about the proof God has already given, to not even look at it, and to take nothing seriously.

That can't be helped. It's a character fault on your side. It's not a lack of evidence fault on God's. He's done more than enough to show you what you need to know.


That makes your case even weaker. You can't even say, "Well, I went there, and saw..." You're just believing...what, exactly?

Think, Biggie, think...what are you relying on as evidence for the Pope? Be specific. Is it pictures you've seen? Rumours? Catholic promises? What is it that has you so darn convinced the Pope's in Rome?

And how do you know he's there today?

Now, that's entertainment!!!

No answer, I see.

What are you afraid of, Biggie? Have you started to realize that all your own most cherished certainties are, like all empirical facts, at best only probabilities? And are you afraid to face it?

You shouldn't be...but I wouldn't be surprised if you are.

I'll get around to it. It's just that I have exchanges with others here and at ILP -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197767 -- that I do not construe to be "just entertainment". With people that I do respect the intelligence of, for example.

Note to others:

Take a gander at the ILP thread. It's a good one. The discussions between me and gib and Maia and Magnus Anderson in particular. Not the riff raff there and those with "conditions" like Ecmandu and meno.

[Immanuel Can]

Why on Earth would it matter if the premises are arranged with the is or the ought one first?

That's easy.

Because the "is" refers to a fact, and as such, is universally available. The "ought" is the contentious part: it's whatever value judgment a person is trying to deduce from the fact.

The "is" is the foundation, and is agreed-upon. The "ought" is the conclusion, and remains contentious.

That's Hume's point.

But I'm sure I will like your one fine, go on.

Okay.

Socialism.

Socialism decides the "ought" first, then tries to make reality conform to it.

It says, for example, "Inequality is always indicative of injustice, and injustice ought to be reversed." Then it claims to set about "equalising" things, so that they will conform to its "ought."

But it's problem is the same as in your last example...that it doesn't really have the "ought" with which it's starting: it just assumes it, then tries to bend reality ("is") to make it fit what's not true.

In fact, inequality is not always indicative of injustice, and does not always require any remedy. Men are not equal to women, young are not equal to old, tall are not equal to short, smart are not equal to stupid, athletic are not equal to fat...and none of that indicates injustice at all. It indicates how things just always are.

Yeah I'm not a socialist, but there's not really anything discernible as an argument there.

It's not an argument. It's an example of stupid people trying to make an "ought" into an "is." That's all. Don't ask more of it than I implied.

It totally does work either way round...

Hume would disagree.

For Hume, the "is" is the given, the factual, the certain. The "ought" is the debatable conclusion.

I'll illustrate, just as Hume might. Hume would say that it's not in doubt that women are not men. That's the "is." It "is" the case that men and women exist, and are different. We all know it. There's no debate there. That's why it's the starting point of the argument.

But what does that fact, that "is" signify? Does it signify that men are better than women, women are better than men, or both are equal? How would we decide that, based on nothing more than the fact that the two sexes exist?

Moreover, what does it imply we should do? That's all debatable; and it's not clear how we should interpret those facts, so as to be more conducive to one or the other. Should we have patiarchy, because men are (indisputably) stronger and better suited to tasks like defense, command, hunting, and war? Or should we have matriarchy, because women (indisputably) are the birth givers and pillars of civilization and culture? Or should we have equality, because both have distinct advantages? Or shoul we just let the chips fall where they may, in every individual case?

Hume would say that from the fact that men and women exist and are different (the "is"), we have no reason to deduce one of those value judgments ("oughts") rather than any other. From bare facts, no values are deducible. That's his point. He says nothing about deducing from "oughts," because he knew, as is quite obvious, that it's the "oughts" that are debatable, uncertain, and in need of a foundation.

Hume just believed that the "is" facts could never provide the necesssary "ought" foundation.