This is incredibly dumb. That fact that "oughts" exist in one's cultural context does not in any way disprove Hume's Guillotine.https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/951311418523029504 …
-
-
“Ought’s” ought to be derived by contemplating the consequence of behavior in context. The context, behavior, and consequence are all “is’s”. We learn ought’s by observing is’s and then extrapolating
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The universe is expanding; we ought to make a fire.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Self contradiction can only apply to models made about what "is". The "is" isn't self contradictory, not because it "ought" not be, but that it simply "isn't". It is not an intrinsic property of reality that our models "ought" to reflect reality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But the interesting question is can you derive an ought from an is, not the converse. Your ethical position relies on the 'ought' claim that well-being should be promoted. Once you have have that, you can use it in conjunction with 'is' statements to reach 'ought' conclusions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But how do you select the axiom (or "ought") underlying your moral philosophy? "That which doesn't suck" just means "that which is immoral". The circle remains.
-
“That which does not suck” can be objective. Of all possible mental states, the one with less needless suffering sucks less. Of all possible physical states (pain to pleasure) the one without needless pain sucks less.
-
The objectivity of “needless” is not nearly as clear. How does a mental state differ if the suffering is necessary or unnecessary?
-
Needless as in avoidable, unnecessary. U could go through life constantly burning ur hand but its needless suffering on path towards flourishing. Some mental states have slight stresses that may not be unavoidable such as learning something difficult to grasp or empathy.
-
My broader point is that you've snuck in an "ought" or a value judgement with your descriptive "Needless" or "unnecessary". What you're saying is fine, but it is not solely reason.
-
I dont think so. Needless is definitional. Some suffering is bound to fall into this category and we know this through objective means. If u wonder why one ought to avoid needless suffering the argument just turns to Harris’ Burning Stovetop.
-
I'm not entirely sure I understand you. I agree that some suffering is unnecessary/needless based on my own intuitions. But your use of "objective" simply does not generalize beyond trivialities.
-
I may be misunderstanding. Please explain further if u can.
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.