Hume: 'Is-Ought'

[_Ren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

...can it be 'solved' by purely rational means?
...I say no, but I'm interested in other people's responses.

I think rationality - clearly - is the ONLY thought processes one should use to attempt to determine what 'is'. To use any other method is farcical.
...I also think that rationality can form some 'part' of bridging the 'Is-Ought' divide. But I can't see how it can be bridged whilst restricting ones self to rationality alone. At least, not in any kind of meaningful manner...

To me, it seems there has to be at least one 'irrational' component. Some minimum amount of 'gut feeling', or 'instinct'.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I agree that there is emotion tied up in rationality. I don't believe one can be fully competent if one is incompetent in the other.

[_Ren]

I agree that there is emotion tied up in rationality.

Hmm - well, I'd say that's probably true - for us poor human saps. I don't believe any of us truly disconnect from our emotions when trying to think rationally - although I'd say some do a much better job than others.
But whether that's a 'good' thing, or 'how it should be' - well, not so sure about that. I could imagine a Vulcan-like creature or an A.I. computer coming to rational conclusions about what 'is' - without a shread of emotion - just fine. In that sense, I don't think rationality 'depends' on emotion.

I have no problem with the idea of constructing the 'Is' component rationally - and with no emotion 'required'.
What I have problems with is the notion of constructing the corresponding 'Ought' in a purely rational manner.

[Guest]

Yes, but pure logic provides no motives. It can tell you how to get A but logic doesn't tell you why you should want A. You could say you want it purely on instinct but some people fight their instincts and I see no reason why I should obey them simply because they are.

My favorite joke is the computer A.I. who takes over. The movies and books never explain why.....other then the general assertion that the computer can.

I for one am glad to be a passionate, emotional being. The idea of being pure rationality and logic is terrifying. Now I could see having those perfect coupled with who I am but to supplant it? I think if I met such a creature I would fear it (for good reason).

[_Gadianton]

You can hit the "is there something extra" wall from different angles. Even rationality runs into questions about language, and ultimately intentions, and how can there be "real" intentions. Qualia - same problem.

For specifically is-ought, there is a really good SEP article that discusses some of this very deeply but I can't remember it off hand. But search for something like "moral nonnaturalism" and I think you'll find it.

In there you'll see a fairly good "make you think" response is something like this:

-What is can be defined by the physical world (supervenience physicalism)
-If ought reduces to is, then it reduces to physical.
-Thought experiment: Is it logically possible for a material atom-for-atom identical world to this one to exist where we could say "Hitler is righteous?"

therefore morals (oughts) supervene of the physical (is) even though we can't explain how.

[_Ren]

The Nehor,
Yeap - at this point at least - pretty much agree with all you said.

Gad,
I was hoping you were gonna reply. Thanks for the reference. I'll try and hunt it down later, and then come back to this...

[_Thama]

Turns out, rationality is far more subjective than what its name implies. Reason and logic are processes, but they are dependent on the data they are fed. As every human experience is different, this data will vary greatly. The idea reminds me of when I read Dune, with the Mentats and their addiction to data.

This is why rational people tend to disagree on so many things (but be OK with those disagreements), while sheep rarely disagree on anything important (and are distraught when they do).

[_Sethbag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

...can it be 'solved' by purely rational means?
...I say no, but I'm interested in other people's responses.

I think rationality - clearly - is the ONLY thought processes one should use to attempt to determine what 'is'. To use any other method is farcical.
...I also think that rationality can form some 'part' of bridging the 'Is-Ought' divide. But I can't see how it can be bridged whilst restricting ones self to rationality alone. At least, not in any kind of meaningful manner...

To me, it seems there has to be at least one 'irrational' component. Some minimum amount of 'gut feeling', or 'instinct'.

I agree with both of the things you said about rationality. As far as determining the "ought", I think we have to frankly discuss the role that our desires play in the discussion. That is, do we want to live in a world where people defraud each other? I don't. I don't think very many people do. So this informs our discussion about whether fraud "ought" to be proscribed by society.

I agree that this introduces a level of subjectivity into the discussion. Rationality I don't think will completely answer all of the "ought" questions.

But one thing I'm pretty certain of is that simply claiming "God did it" as the basis for "ought" is meaningless and unacceptable. We "ought" to do, or not do, something because some fellow human being stood up and proclaimed to the world that they speak for some mystical being, who told this person to tell the rest of us what we "ought" to do? Sorry, that's not credible.

Dan Dennet said this once kinda like this. I forget the name he used so I'll make one up, and paraphrase somewhat.

John Doe: "Nope, you're wrong. Debby said so."

Joe Schmoe: "Well, who is Debby?"

John Doe: "She's a friend of mine. She's always right."

And that's pretty much it, really. We would probably (hopefully) all find it to be absurd if people pulled the "Debby said so - she's a friend of mine - she's always right." argument on us.

And yet people do that all the time. "Sorry, you're wrong. Elohim said so." "Sorry, who is this Elohim?" "Oh, I believe that Elohim exists, and that he's always right, and that he wants me to tell you what you ought to do." Uh-huh.

Invoking Elohim, or Allah, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is utterly meaningless. It tells us nothing that we can't hash out as human beings without having to lay down the God Trump card.

[_Ren]

Gad,

Done a search and came across this article:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/

Looks like the kind of stuff you were refering to? Gonna spend some time reading through it a bit...

What is can be defined by the physical world (supervenience physicalism)

I'm down with that.

If ought reduces to is, then it reduces to physical.

Yeah - that's 'if' in capitals for me, and I don't get how that would work at this point.

Thought experiment: Is it logically possible for a material atom-for-atom identical world to this one to exist where we could say "Hitler is righteous?"

Well, if we consider somebody who followed Hitler as 'righteous' at the time and never apologised for it - do I need to consider a 'copied universe' to answer the question? Does 'logically possible' mean somebody considers him righteous?
Myself, I would certainly see both 'Hitlers' as immoral (on balance), and I can't see how I would have any other view if all 'materialistic' parameters are identical. I can't concieve of how it would be possible to come to any other conclusion.

But then, the question I just answered wasn't the question asked. I just answered the question:
"Is it possible for ME to consider a material atom-for-atom idential world to this one to exist where we could say 'Hitler is righteous'".

The answer is - no, I can't. But then this question implies that the 'Ought' is owned by me, and isn't some 'external' thing that I can inspect.

I suppose my problem with the question is - without first establishing some way of attempting to determine moral absolutes seperate from my own 'opinion', I don't feel I can really attempt to answer it. Or maybe I just need clarification on what 'logically possible' is meant to mean in this context. I guess...


Thama,
Hey! Nice to see ya around these parts mate...

Reason and logic are processes, but they are dependent on the data they are fed. As every human experience is different, this data will vary greatly.

...

This is why rational people tend to disagree on so many things (but be OK with those disagreements), while sheep rarely disagree on anything important (and are distraught when they do).

I totally agree - with both parts.
But would you also agree that just because we don't always have all the data, or we aren't perfect at collecting 'accurate' data - that doesn't mean that we abandon rationality as THE method of trying to determine what is. (Not 'Ought' - that's a different matter. I'm concentrating on trying to determine what 'is' for this bit...)

I mean, sure - Person A and Person B can question whether the other is taking into account all the data, whether their data is accurate, whether they are analysing that data 'logically' etc.
...but are either person justified in saying: "Well, since our data might be incomplete or faulty - let's just try turning over some tarot cards"...?


Sethbag,

But one thing I'm pretty certain of is that simply claiming "God did it" as the basis for "ought" is meaningless and unacceptable. We "ought" to do, or not do, something because some fellow human being stood up and proclaimed to the world that they speak for some mystical being, who told this person to tell the rest of us what we "ought" to do? Sorry, that's not credible.

Agreed that I don't find it credible either.
But isn't the disagreement above about what 'Is'? I mean, it kinda looks like the disagreement hasn't even gotten a chance to take a sensible inspection on what 'Ought' to be, because neither person has actually agreed on what the 'Is' starting point is.

What I find interesting is that - when I consider it - I don't actually believe I'd act much differently even if there WAS a supreme being who, apparently, had a set of absolute rules that I was meant to follow. That may be what 'Is', and maybe I could even be convinced of it. But does that mean that the corresponding 'Ought' is an open-and-shut case?
For me personally, not so much. For both the Mormon and the EV concepts of God, I'm pretty sure I would not consider it 'righteous' to follow either one. I might to so out of fear of hell, or to make my life easier - but do either of those count as an 'Ought'? Would I be getting baptised, or following the EV God because I 'Ought' to - even if he actually DID exist? Or am I just doing what is easiest for me - so that I can avoid the torture chambers, and sit comfortably at the dictators table?

This is what integues me. To me, it seems like my sense of 'Ought' is actually quite seperate from what 'Is'. I can concieve of being convinced that what 'Is' is different than what I currently think it is. But I'm not sure that would actually change what I think 'Ought' to be. Of course, I may change my actions depending on what 'Is', but that's only because the circumstances have change. My 'internal formula' - if you like - for constructing what 'Ought' to be from what 'Is' doesn't necesserarily change at all - even when my world-view is spun around 180 degrees...!

Dan Dennet said this once kinda like this. I forget the name he used so I'll make one up, and paraphrase somewhat.

John Doe: "Nope, you're wrong. Debby said so."

Joe Schmoe: "Well, who is Debby?"

John Doe: "She's a friend of mine. She's always right."

Right. On the face of it, that argument is clearly rediculous.

But it is rediculous because Debby almost certainly isn't 'all-knowing'?
Or is it rediculous regardless of whether Debby is 'all-knowing'?
(Assume Debby actually exists for the purposes of those questions!)

Guess that might depend on the definition of 'All-knowing'. Does all-knowing, by definition, imply one can know absolute morality?


Great discussion so far by the way. Cheers all.

[_Thama]

Gad,

Thama,
Hey! Nice to see ya around these parts mate...

Reason and logic are processes, but they are dependent on the data they are fed. As every human experience is different, this data will vary greatly.

...

This is why rational people tend to disagree on so many things (but be OK with those disagreements), while sheep rarely disagree on anything important (and are distraught when they do).

I totally agree - with both parts.
But would you also agree that just because we don't always have all the data, or we aren't perfect at collecting 'accurate' data - that doesn't mean that we abandon rationality as THE method of trying to determine what is. (Not 'Ought' - that's a different matter. I'm concentrating on trying to determine what 'is' for this bit...)

I mean, sure - Person A and Person B can question whether the other is taking into account all the data, whether their data is accurate, whether they are analysing that data 'logically' etc.
...but are either person justified in saying: "Well, since our data might be incomplete or faulty - let's just try turning over some tarot cards"...?

Hey, good to see you too! I got a bit tired of the mental gymnastics at MADB... I'm sure you understand. :P

I don't think we abandon rationality as the means of determining what "is", but we do need to temper it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Simply because a concept can be rationally validified doesn't necessarily make it absolutely true, but rather it makes it a) consistent with the data against which it was verified, b) within the computational system within our brains we call "logic". Can we know absolutely that human rationality is reliable? I don't think so, but since it's the best we have, we make do. I think we've done pretty well thus far.

Of course, when we attempt to define "is" at a social (as opposed to individual) level, the increased value of empirical evidence comes into play. While experiential evidence may be personally useful, it is by nature not as reliable as data which can be obtained repeatably by anyone. The overvaluing of experiential evidence and the misinterpretation thereof (caused by stamping memories with desired implications) was my greatest logical fault as a believing Mormon, and I don't think I'm alone in that.