Hume's Guillotine: Is it possible to derive ought from is?

[Magical Realist]

Can any examination of the facts every recommend a course of action or a judgement of value? At what point does a description legitimately turn into a prescription? Hume didn't think this was possible. Here's what he had to say about it:

"Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."


Hume asks, given knowledge of the way the universe is, in what sense can we say it ought to be different?
Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.[2] This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Wittgenstein made a similar point with his Big Book thought experiment:

"No statement of fact can ever be, or imply, a judgment of absolute value. Suppose one of you were an omniscient person and therefore knew all the movements of all the bodies in the world dead or alive and that you also knew all the states of mind of all human beings that ever lived, and suppose you wrote all you knew in a big book, then this book would contain the whole description of the world; and what I want to say is, that this book would contain nothing that we would call an ethical judgment or anything that would logically imply such a judgment."--- Lecture on Ethics (1997) Ludwig Wittgenstein - Printed in Darwall, Gibbard, and Railton, “Moral Discourse and Practice: Some Philosophical Approaches, New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 67

 

[iceaura]

The requirement that the "ought" be logically or universally absolute can be dropped without relevant consequence in real circumstances. Once that is done, "ought" can be derived from the "is" of a comprehension of the basis, justification, and physical establishment of one's system of morality.

For example: Without the wrongness of betrayal in an abstract sense (prior to the specification of exactly what constitutes betrayal in a particular situation) established however (Darwinian evolution? quite possibly), the word "ought" is meaningless and the question of derivation is moot.

The fact that we currently lack such comprehension would be a practical difficulty only, then, not an insurmountable philosophical wall.

 

[Magical Realist]

In anticipation of objections, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between "ought" as used in different contexts. We can say: "You OUGHT to carry an umbrella today." and mean it in a purely logical sense. We certainly aren't suggesting you carry an umbrella because it is the morally right thing to do. Another sense of "ought" is along the lines of "likelihood"--"If the batter hits the ball hard enough it OUGHT to go into the stands." Ruling out these, the "ought" described by Hume is a specifically moral ought. It is something that should be done or brought about because it is morally right. But again, how do we derive this from fact or reason?

 

[Magical Realist]

The requirement that the "ought" be logically or universally absolute can be dropped without relevant consequence in real circumstances. Once that is done, "ought" can be derived from the "is" of a comprehension of the basis, justification, and physical establishment of one's system of morality.

Isn't all moral judgement inherently absolutist? In moral action we are in effect voting that a certain standard of behavior apply universally. I don't know of anyone who says "It was the right thing for me to do, but only based on my own moral system." By morally right we mean to designate a certain idealized kind of behavior that applies equally to all human beings. Otherwise why call it "right"?

 

[Asguard]

hang on, are you saying that in every system or morality that there is a judgement of the morality of certain actions because that seems quite self evident. Of course some actions are going to be judged as immoral if you are discussing morality

 

[Magical Realist]

hang on, are you saying that in every system or morality that there is a judgement of the morality of certain actions because that seems quite self evident. Of course some actions are going to be judged as immoral if you are discussing morality

What I mean to suggest is that no person acts upon a moral system as if it was their own personal moral system. They assume what is right or wrong for them is right or wrong for any other human being. Otherwise, why call it moral or immoral? Why not just call it what you decided to do based on your own choice and reasoning at the time? We only invoke moral justifications for behavior that we believe should be standardized beyond just own preferences for others as well. There is simply no sense in moralizing or immoralizing an action that applies only to you yourself at a certain time. IOW, morality assumes universality.

 

[iceaura]

Isn't all moral judgement inherently absolutist? In moral action we are in effect voting that a certain standard of behavior apply universally.

But not to ants, or sharks, or Martians, true? So we are talking about human moral nature, suitable for guiding human life, and once limited like that one can approach it via what that human nature is.

I don't know of anyone who says "It was the right thing for me to do, but only based on my own moral system."

Sure you do - everyone who has, say, acknowledged the lack of immorality in behaviors common to other cultures that would be immoral in their own.

Maybe you are not one of those people, but you know some.

 

[Asguard]

What I mean to suggest is that no person acts upon a moral system as if it was their own personal moral system. They assume what is right or wrong for them is right or wrong for any other human being. Otherwise, why call it moral or immoral? Why not just call it what you decided to do based on your own choice and reasoning at the time? We only invoke moral justifications for behavior that we believe should be standardized beyond just own preferences for others as well. There is simply no sense in moralizing or immoralizing an action that applies only to you yourself at a certain time. IOW, morality assumes universality.

yes and no, I have formally studied principle based ethics and yes I do use it. do I always go through that formal process? no but I DO try to use it

 

[dumbest man on earth]

What I mean to suggest is that no person acts upon a moral system as if it was their own personal moral system. They assume what is right or wrong for them is right or wrong for any other human being. Otherwise, why call it moral or immoral? Why not just call it what you decided to do based on your own choice and reasoning at the time? We only invoke moral justifications for behavior that we believe should be standardized beyond just own preferences for others as well. There is simply no sense in moralizing or immoralizing an action that applies only to you yourself at a certain time. IOW, morality assumes universality.

Magical Realist - quoted from Post #6 - "What I mean to suggest is that no person acts upon a moral system as if it was their own personal moral system".
I do not concur. If any person's acts are predicated upon a moral system, it is only because they have adopted said moral system as their own personal moral system or discipline. Not everyone assumes any or everything - it has even been said that assuming is something that one ought not do.
Different societies/cultures/religions may teach/preach varying morals, yet allow for different individuals within those groups to employ/exercise/practice those morals differently or not at all.
Morals are akin to values,tenets and even beliefs. At what level or whether or not they are employed/practiced has more to do with how they were acquired/instilled/adopted, than whether or not the individual thinks/feels/believes that they ought or ought not apply universally.
For instance, some individuals may morally conduct themselves differently when dating/engaged/married than when single. They also may or may not expect or demand or even have an opinion as to whether or not their partner does the same.

Magical Realist - quoted from Post #6 - "We only invoke moral justifications for behavior that we believe should be standardized beyond just own preferences for others as well."
Again, I do not concur. Your use of the word "WE", seems to suggest that "EVERYONE" does that - again something that should not be assumed. Whether or not to apply/exercise/employ a moral justification is an purely individual choice.

Magical Realist - quoted from Post #6 - "There is simply no sense in moralizing or immoralizing an action that applies only to you yourself at a certain time."
To this, I not only do not concur, I completely disagree. Whether or not to allow or deny moral justification to, in any degree, guide or affect behavior is purely an individual discipline - and can be applied at purely certain times - as in, as stated before, whether or not an individual is dating/engaged/married or single.

Magical Realist - quoted from Post #6 - "IOW, morality assumes universality."
I have no idea what is the intended or implied meaning of "IOW". Again "assumption" - that seems to be an individual fault that not every individual chooses to adopt or embrace.
Again, morals are not universal.
Heck, I am not even sure that a concept/value/tenet/belief can be imbued with an ability akin to "assuming".

Magical Realist, these are only my views in response to your posting - I, dmoe, in no way assume/think/believe/demand that anyone else or everyone else have the same views.
You expressed (possibly your own apparent) views, I am expressing my views - is that not what a discussion or forum is for?

 

[wegs]

''Do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you.'' That's as inherently 'absolutist' as it gets, really. People violate it all day long, but that doesn't mean they would want the same 'crime' done to them.

So, going with that, I'd say if you wouldn't want to be violated in some way by another person, then it would stand to reason to treat him/her the same way. Many people live by absolutist laws, and don't label them as such. They simply treat others as they wish to be treated. (by 'treated,' I mean not stealing, not lying, not betraying confidences, not breaking promises, not cheating, etc...all things that we wouldn't want done to us, so we should be mindful to not do them to others) Mutual reciprocity is another way to view it.

A religious person might view the Ten Commandments as inherently absolutist, and if you strip those 'laws' of having any Biblical or religious undertones, those rules are pretty standard for how we would all like to be treated. Not a one of us wants to be cheated on, stolen from, betrayed, etc...so, we should 'do unto others as we would wish they do unto us.'

Just my $.02

 

[dumbest man on earth]

''Do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you.'' That's as inherently 'absolutist' as it gets, really. People violate it all day long, but that doesn't mean they would want the same 'crime' done to them.

So, going with that, I'd say if you wouldn't want to be violated in some way by another person, then it would stand to reason to treat him/her the same way. Many people live by absolutist laws, and don't label them as such. They simply treat others as they wish to be treated. (by 'treated,' I mean not stealing, not lying, not betraying confidences, not breaking promises, not cheating, etc...all things that we wouldn't want done to us, so we should be mindful to not do them to others) Mutual reciprocity is another way to view it.

A religious person might view the Ten Commandments as inherently absolutist, and if you strip those 'laws' of having any Biblical or religious undertones, those rules are pretty standard for how we would all like to be treated. Not a one of us wants to be cheated on, stolen from, betrayed, etc...so, we should 'do unto others as we would wish they do unto us.'

Just my $.02

Similar to karma -or like the saying : "You reap what you sow."

Just my $137.89 ($.02 - adjusted for inflation)

 

[iceaura]

You want to be high class about it, you can set up this conversation in philosophical language thus: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp

What we are talking about is the categorical imperative conjoined with the universal law - numbers 4 and 5 in the link.