Getting from “Is” to “Ought” 1/ Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.
-
-
6/ Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”
Show this thread -
7/ We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)
Show this thread -
8/ So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Lost you here Sam.... surely there's nothing wrong with doing something that sucks *for yourself*. It might be stupid to put your hand in the stove, but it's your choice. To me, morality involves avoiding actions that suck *for others*.
-
Yes, when your actions can affect no one else, we don't talk about "morality" or "ethics"—but terms like "value" and "well-being" still apply. You could think of having a moral/ethical connection to your future self, however.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
1/ Sam: the whole point of the ought-is distinction is that you can’t derive a normative conclusion from non-normative premises. This is your normative premise. The issue isn’t how certain this premise seems to be to you, or whether it is in fact true. The issue is the fact that
-
2/ it’s a premise. And the premise is not as good as you think. Your use of “ought” is an equivocation. You mean “for all practical purposes, we ought not to do what sucks, because everyone hates what sucks.” Your idea is that
-
3/ as a matter of fact everyone forms such hypothetical imperatives. But human self-destructiveness illustrates that human beings do not universally adhere to imperatives of this form. So now your idea is that they “should,” where “should” is no longer hypothetical and pragmatic
-
4/ but ethical. This doesn’t follow. Unless one assumes a normative premise, e.g. people ought to do what doesn’t suck. You’re begging the question. If you want to win at this game, fire up some premises in which “ought” does not appear.
-
5/ Perhaps I can make this clearer still. Suppose I got excited about the following derivation, in its potential to bridge the ought/is divide: 1. Everyone wants to be happy. 2. In order to be happy, they ought to do x (fulfill some set of obligations, possess certain virtues
-
6/ 3. Therefore everyone ought to do x Seductive, right? Two is statements, and then an ought.
-
7/ It doesn't work. Granting the premises, it is true that everyone ought to do x, IF they want to be happy. That's a "hypothetical imperative": it recognizes a causal connection between certain actions and a given goal. But it doesn't tell you that you ought to have that goal.
-
8/ Just because everyone wants to be happy doesn't mean that ought to want that, or ought to seek it. Now, I'm ready to this premise: people ought to want to be happy, and they ought to seek it.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is you're smuggling in a preference for an inelegant equilibrium solution. A universe that is capable of conscious minds connected to sensate bodies but in fact has none completely defeats your burned hand argument. Anti-natalism maximizes the 'suck less' goal.
-
It actually doesn’t. Look at Peter Senger’s work on animals. His conclusion would be “well, guess to prevent animal cruelty we just be cruel once and kill ‘em all”. Instead, there is a “how do we maximize well being of food animals after we no longer need them?” problem.
-
The only state of affairs in which the absence of pain is maximized is one in which there exist no creatures capable of experiencing pain. It is the global minimum for that property. It's a logically inescapable fact.
-
You're viewing this as a binary concern. Like Sam said to Eric and Ben: working out creates pain; if you woke up in the morning with DOMs without working out, you'd be heading to the doctor. But that pain has benefit. Pain can be offset by pleasure, comfort, etc.
-
I had two Tweets in respect of that particular condition - you read the first, but I think you missed the second.
-
Twitter: where we like to create shit by dropping tweets mid-thread.
-
I agree. I wish there was a way to link a chain of Tweets so that a continuation of a thought contained in a subsequent Tweet wouldn't get lost. Alas, Post-it Notes aren't the best medium for discursive affairs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.