Hume's is/ought problem? (L3 - Is Ought Problem

Hume's is/ought problem? (L3 - Is Ought Problem - Hume)

Рет қаралды 13,920

Mr Moffat Philosophy

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 71

@seenloitering7019 Жыл бұрын

This ought not to be a problem, but there it is.

@impolitikful 2 жыл бұрын

Great explanation 🙏

@BoundInChains 11 ай бұрын

Best video on the topic. ❤

@stevesmith7839 Жыл бұрын

This is a good video. You ought to have made it like you did.

@pauljohnson7791 Жыл бұрын

I think if we are arguing about objective morality, then Hume's Law holds: The is's of our current existence and the ought's we relatively conclude are not sufficient to prove an objective ought. However, if we accept the combination of subjective/relative morality (think Nash Equilibrium), then our current oughts are sufficient and the proof may be as simple as using the four defintins of ought (advisability, obligation, expectation, consequence) as tests to connect the is's and ought's. yes, there is still a leap from facts to values, but relative morality allows for that.

@andymontes3980 2 ай бұрын

Why ought I accept your argument? Should I?

@RAYSZ_01 7 ай бұрын

Nice one sir

@moeingh4309 Жыл бұрын

Awesome video👍👍👍

@mikeshivak 3 ай бұрын

I think the confusion is in what we mean by "ought" There seems to be an implied preference that is sometimes used. Would "ought" exist without consciousness? If no, than there preference IS part of ought and not just smuggled in.

@icekills1 13 күн бұрын

I think the problem is that if there are two preferences there are opposition, how do you know which one is true? Imo, no one can solve the ought/is problem and we must use our discernment as much as possible.

@saadhorsepower8908 5 ай бұрын

In the same way we have certain axioms that are is-statements in math's that are so basic and fundamental we just assume to be true even though it is unprovable, I say that different ethical theories or religions or ideologies also have certain axioms that happen to be ought statements. For example: Utilitarianism could be an ethical theory where it has a singular ought statement which is "One ought to increase total happiness/pleasure"

@0The0Web0 10 ай бұрын

very good presentation 👍

@darkengine5931 2 жыл бұрын

Isn't this all merely a problem of lacking an objective/impartial definition of morality empirically derived from our anthropology? For example, we have a working, "health realist" definition of "health" derived impartially from empiricists. That lets us state that "chainsmoking is unhealthy" as a descriptive hypothesis (and one which can be rigorously tested) rather than a normative expression of one's values. The only reason why I think we consider a statement like "chainsmoking is immoral" a value statement rather than a factual claim is because we lack a proper, noncircular definition of what "immoral" means.

@jennosyde6903 11 ай бұрын

Yes, but you’re still assuming that we ought to do what is healthy or we ought not do what’s immoral. You ought not sneak hidden values into your arguments. 😀

@darkengine5931 11 ай бұрын

@@jennosyde6903 Oh sorry, this is an ancient comment but IIRC, it wasn't directly in response to the video and the is/ought gap. It was in response to a broader metaethical discussion. If I remember it, the person I was talking to stated that we can't logically claim anything is immoral, not even make statements like, "Torturing babies for fun is immoral," because they claimed that to state that anything is immoral implies (without being explicitly stated) that we "ought not do it". Whereas I don't interpret language this way. To state that anything is immoral in my view does not mean that we ought to be moral or ought not be immoral. It's just making a claim that something is or isn't moral in ways I see no different from claiming that something is or isn't healthy. There is no "ought" from my perspective embedded in the claims of moral realists.

@JM-us3fr Жыл бұрын

I think the is/ought problem disappears when you take it to an extreme example of an AI with a particular programming. For that AI, it _ought_ to pursue its programmed values, and it _is_ programmed with those values. With humans, we also ought to pursue our programmed values, and we _are_ programmed with particular values which were somewhat evolutionarily ordained (it's a little more complicated than that; just because our genes want to self-replicate doesn't mean we have the same values). Our programmed values are something along the lines of pursue pleasure/ avoid pain. However, in addition to this programming, we also have rationality, irrationality, and empathy, which makes the whole moral experience much more complex because we are trying to optimize a changing parameter.

@coreydenison4560 Жыл бұрын

Then you run into a separate problem for instance humans aren’t programmed definitively like certain programs are and so there’s a aspect of will in this situation for humans that isn’t applicable to a software. The program ought to follow the program because it has no will. While a human doesn’t ought to be fearful, or ought to be moral. For it has free will.

@JM-us3fr Жыл бұрын

@@coreydenison4560 It’s not really a problem for me because I don’t believe in free will. But let’s suppose we have free will. That doesn’t change the fact that we are programmed with particular values, it only means we won’t necessarily pursue our values like a computer.

@omaralsofi9855 Жыл бұрын

I think your missing something with this analogy, that being with a certain AI, if it has a specific computer programming, it’s not really the case that it ought to follow that programming, it’s more that it has to follow that programming. For me at least, to say someone ought do something implies there is an opportunity for them to do something else, but a computer like this lacks the ability to do something outside its programming, thus it is meaningless to say they ought do something if they can’t do anything else. Same thing with humans, because if we are evolutionary “hardwired” with certain preferences and desires (which I believe we are), then it’s only that we have to follow those desires, not that we ought follow them. Here’s how I would word it: It is the case that an AI has a certain programming It is the case that the AI has to follow that programming Therefore, it is the case that the AI absolutely follows it programming (No ought claims made).

@JM-us3fr Жыл бұрын

@@omaralsofi9855 I agree with most of what you said, but I think the key difference is that I view all necessary behavior as a type of obligation. Not _meaningless_ obligation, but _trivial_ obligation. Obligation only becomes interesting when we don’t know what actions will be taken, and so we typically discuss morality in terms of _possible_ actions. But there’s no reason we couldn’t discuss morality when there is only a single possible action (ie a necessary action).

@Flynbourne 11 ай бұрын

The bridge here is the definition of moral. Why do we have morals. What is the objective of morals. Do morals have an objective. Surely they do. If morals have an objective then you can derive an ought from an is by evaluating whether an action contributes to or detracts from the underlying objective of morals. If morals have no objective then the argument is of course pointless and morals are pointless. Given that we place so much emphasis on morals they must have an objective or utility. Thus they can be used as a bridge from is to ought.

@yteuropehdgaming9633 2 жыл бұрын

7:14 I think that the word you might be looking for is ''intersubjectively'', because that universal value of pleasure exists between conscious minds.

@sudipkumarroy3790 Жыл бұрын

Here in second arguement "illegal" refers to something that shouldn't be done owing to it being prohibited by law and transgressing which one incurs penalty. It is definately not desirable for one to incur any penalty. Then I don't see what is wrong in saying "One ought not to steal". Most moral propositions are of the nature - "The fire can burn you therefore you ought not touch the fire". Of course I admit of the possibility that not all moral prescriptions are of this nature. So Hume's point still stands. But Hume's objection doesn't relate to those types as mentioned above - which constitutes the majority of all moral injunctions.

@Google_Censored_Commenter Жыл бұрын

Does it logically follow that it isn't desirable to incur penalties? No, that's a value judgement. Desires are not factual claims. Nor is it obvious how the desire to not be penalized by the government, should be weighed up against the desire to do what is right, or just. To save innocents for example, even if it is illegal. Hume's objection does stand against all the examples you mentioned, there's a hidden ought you didn't mention. "Fire can burn you therefore you ought not touch the fire" doesn't actually logically follow from the mere fact of fire burning you. You need to add the premise that "you ought not want to be burned" first. It's implicit in your statement, but it's there nontheless.

@transcendentphilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Great explanation. I tend to think that the is/ought gap only applies to logical deduction and doesn't apply ontologically. Values (oughts) reduce to facts (is) about psychology. The facts of nature give us our oughts whether we like that or not. We may not be able to logically deduce why we have our values, but we still have them due to nature.

@williamanon2050 Жыл бұрын

There’s a distinction between “you should do x” and “I value x/I want you to do x.” One is an ought statement, the other is an is statement.

@transcendentphilosophy Жыл бұрын

@@williamanon2050 Where does "you should do x" come from? It comes from "I value x"

@williamanon2050 Жыл бұрын

@@transcendentphilosophy But you agree that you can’t derive “You should do X” from “I value X?”

@transcendentphilosophy Жыл бұрын

@@williamanon2050 No I don't agree. I made a whole KZbin video articulating why the is-ought gap is a confusion of logic. Ontologically, shoulds reduce to values. You have a biological value, and that manifests into a psychological should. Creatures should do the things that their biology values. Obviously there is a hierarchy of values and one value can sabotage another value, so the biological creature should act in such a way to satisfy all their values, not just some of them in a self-destructive way. To say that creatures should not do what their biology values is an appeal to a transcendent moral authority, like the Christian God, who hates natural biological values - an indefensible position.

@Google_Censored_Commenter Жыл бұрын

@@transcendentphilosophy You can say it's an indefensible position, yet it is one many, like myself, hold. It's not inherently illogical to believe one should value something different. You, right now, think the people in the islamic world who value throwing gays off rooftops, covering their women in all black, and thinks public beheadings are great, should change their values. If you discovered that their values were rooted in biology or some other fact about their psychology - so what? Does that suddenly change how you feel about their values? Only if you had a value such as "people should only value what they already do" or "people should never change their values" could you defend such a stance. But I hope you see how indefensible *that* position is. Can you really say you value not having gays thrown off rooftops, if you also insist anyone who does so, should continue? That their underlying values motivating their behaviour, must not be changed? That just doesn't follow for me. So hopefully you agree changing values is acceptable. Now all you have to do is apply that same standard to yourself. Treat yourself as yet another person who *ought* to be willing to change their values to better ones. Of course the trouble there is, better according to *who* ? We can only ever appeal to our own values for guidance. But the idea that nature somehow as imbued us with perfect moral values is absurd.

@WeekdayProductions 7 ай бұрын

so I can't say "if a man called a batchelor is an unmarried man, then logically only men who are unmarried ought to be called bachelors"?

@asheshkafle4984 4 ай бұрын

no, it only applies to moral considerations

@Tareyak Жыл бұрын

Why ought we ought tho?

@POV_With_This_Queen Жыл бұрын

when teachers have another life out of school

@Suesco 4 ай бұрын

if this is a fact, then why should it matter? as we cant derive any oughts from it? its literally a non issue.

@jpbrooks2 2 жыл бұрын

I agree that the cogency of the Natural Moral Law theory rests on the cogency of arguments for the existence of a creator God who is the ultimate source (i.e., the highest source in the hierarchy of sources of things) of every kind of created thing in existence. And many of those arguments, by themselves, fall short of establishing the existence of such a God. However, it is not clear to me why, given that (from the standpoint of logic) there can be only one such *Supreme* entity, a "cumulative case" for "Its" existence could not be constructed from all of the rebuttals against the objections to the arguments for the existence of such a *Supreme* Creator. JPB

@zackmorris6616 Жыл бұрын

This is absurd if you can’t get an ought from an is then where would you get itfrom

@roseskyeohmy Жыл бұрын

your emotions!

@roseskyeohmy Жыл бұрын

Explained very basically, Hume is a moral sentimentalist, he argues that morality isn't defined by rationality, but by emotions. For example: if you were to witness a murder, you would feel fear, disgust, sadness, etc... Humans feel sympathy, and this would bring you to the conclusion that murder is wrong, (which is a good conclusion, btw) He sees rationality as a product of emotions, rather than emotions as a product of rationality. You wouldn't feel bad for the murder victim because you think logically "oh, killing is wrong, now I will feel sad"

@sync2597 11 ай бұрын

@@roseskyeohmywhy do we think it's wrong

@roseskyeohmy 11 ай бұрын

1. Biological instinct: we have a survival instinct which deters us from suicide and murder. 2. Cultural conditioning: the morals we are brought up to have. We are told early on that murder is bad. One major caveat is that not all cases of moral issues are both. Many morals are purely cultural. For example, gay marriage. It has been deemed as immoral to be with the same sex, because some societies have deemed it as such. There has been a shift in acceptance because the culture slowly began to view it as OK. This is why gen Z is more accepting than generations before them. They grew up in a more accepting culture. @@sync2597

@roseskyeohmy 11 ай бұрын

When a moral issue is based in culture. We come up with an explanation under the guise of rationality. "Being gay is unnatural." "Kids grow up best with two parents of the opposite sex." These statements have been proven incorrect.

@gibransalazar7769 8 ай бұрын

My poor brain is not smart enough for this 😵

@shafouingue 2 жыл бұрын

To save utilitarism from Hume's guillotine this might seem more logical to me : ❌We value well-being. it is a fact that Humans universally value well-being therefore it is objectively moral to maximize well-being. ☑We value well-being. it is a fact that Humans universally value well-being therefore it is objectively in our best interest to maximize well-being so we should accept it as a moral value or guiding principle.

@sub-harmonik 2 жыл бұрын

You are valuing well-being as something to be acted on. Which is completely reasonable and pretty much everyone would agree. But it is still an axiom. There's no way past Hume's guillotine without these moral axioms

@darkengine5931 2 жыл бұрын

@@sub-harmonik What if the subjective goal is stated in the premise as a fact? Ex: P1: I want to live a healthy life. P2: Junk food is unhealthy. C: Therefore, I ought to refrain from eating junk food [if I want to live a healthy life, but that's redundant with P1]. Doesn't that bridge the gap now that the goal is explicitly stated as a premise rather than assumed in the conclusion? Another: P1: This patient has been diagnosed with cancer. P2: The patient has expressed a desire in treating the illness. P3: The most viable treatment for this type of cancer is chemotherapy or radiation therapy. C: Therefore, the patient ought to receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Is there still an is-ought gap? If so, I'm confused as to what "ought" even really means if it's not an expression of what we believe (which can be objective in the sense of being independent of our subjective tastes and capable of being arrived at by anyone else seeking to be objective) to be an optimal way to fulfill a stated goal.

@sub-harmonik 2 жыл бұрын

@@darkengine5931 you are implicitly using the premise that people ought do things that will result in an outcome that they want. Which is reasonable, but that is an axiom. (and there should also obviously be other considerations in any ethical decision bc your wants and needs aren't the only things that should be considered in every situation) In your junk food example, that actually isn't really an ethical statement. When you include these subjective premises you are making is statements: I should do X if I want Y outcome. That's just a statement about what a certain outcome will be given a certain behavior (an is statement), not a statement about what a certain outcome should be. You are saying the outcome should be a certain way because you want it to be a certain way. But that seems kind of circular. Why do you want it to be a certain way? And why is doing things that result in an outcome you want 'good'? (which is really another way of saying you ought to do it) the entire issue is that what one ought do must necessarily be based on these kinds of 'ought axioms'. If you continue to ask yourself e.g. why you ought to do things that will result in outcomes you want (and ask why you ought to do those things etc.), you will only be able to reach other 'ought' axioms. And in my opinion those ought axioms always lead to basically the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain (which are the most basic of these ought axioms). and therefore those are what the things that we refer to 'good' and 'bad' are based on

@darkengine5931 2 жыл бұрын

@@sub-harmonik >> you are implicitly using the premise that people ought do things that will result in an outcome that they want. I'm then left with the question of what "ought" actually means if that's not embedded into its definition. >> In your junk food example, that actually isn't really an ethical statement. What exactly composes a moral/ethical statement if I may ask? I tend to view any practical definition as one concerned with the well-being of ourselves, loved ones, complete strangers, maybe even living creatures of other species (depending on how far our empathy goes). >> And in my opinion those ought axioms always lead to the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. I tend to agree if we use something more like Mills' definition than Bentham's although I see a lot of subjective discrepancy in short term vs. long-term, foreseeable vs. unforeseeable, known vs. unknown. It's something I figure omniscience would resolve. I suspect we'd all be consequentialists of some form if we could foresee the consequences of every possible action over infinite periods of time.

@darkengine5931 2 жыл бұрын

@@sub-harmonik I had a look through the various ways "ought" is defined and I think the base case for recursion is this: >> [...] used to indicate a desirable or expected state. I think that's the root of it all. When it's defined relative to duties or responsibilities, I think when we subject the question of why we ought to abide by our duties or responsibilities, it recurses back to the above sort of definition as the base case to terminate the recursion. From my view, to state that one "ought" to do something means that it is desirable for them to do so in our best estimate (and our best estimate isn't necessarily just a matter of preference, but instead one capable of being arrived at independently by any subject if we're rigorous in our assessment).