Sam Harris Not Getting The Is-Ought Problem

 
GodlessKafir
 
Avatar
 
 
GodlessKafir
Total Posts:  11
Joined  08-12-2015
 
 
 
25 June 2020 04:20
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3139
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
25 June 2020 06:58
 

Hume was simply wrong.

No fact is value neutral - everything means something to someone.
Everyone wants the current circumstance to stay or change.
Simply by wanting something different than what we have we make a value decision.

Life isn’t abstract enough for the is-ought problem as described to apply.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8170
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
25 June 2020 16:10
 
GodlessKafir - 25 June 2020 04:20 AM

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2018/07/23/sam-harris-not-getting-an-ought-from-an-is/

Are you coming at this question from the position of strict moral relativism?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7130
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 June 2020 19:43
 
Twissel - 25 June 2020 06:58 AM

Hume was simply wrong.

No fact is value neutral - everything means something to someone.
Everyone wants the current circumstance to stay or change.
Simply by wanting something different than what we have we make a value decision.

Life isn’t abstract enough for the is-ought problem as described to apply.

I can think of one obvious exception: it’s a fact that all facts are value neutral. Otherwise they wouldn’t be facts. Whether that means anything to you—whether you wish it weren’t so—only shows that your opinion of this fact is not value neutral.

You’re confusing facts with your subjective perception of facts.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3139
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
26 June 2020 02:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 June 2020 07:43 PM
Twissel - 25 June 2020 06:58 AM

Hume was simply wrong.

No fact is value neutral - everything means something to someone.
Everyone wants the current circumstance to stay or change.
Simply by wanting something different than what we have we make a value decision.

Life isn’t abstract enough for the is-ought problem as described to apply.

I can think of one obvious exception: it’s a fact that all facts are value neutral. Otherwise they wouldn’t be facts. Whether that means anything to you—whether you wish it weren’t so—only shows that your opinion of this fact is not value neutral.

You’re confusing facts with your subjective perception of facts.

you are using two different meaning of “neutral” interchangeably here. which is the source of the error.

Facts might be neutral in that everyone, using appropriate methods, can arrive at them regardless of individual disposition.
But they are not neutral in what they mean for people.

The Is-ought is only a problem if you insist that for one IS there should be only one Ought if Hume is wrong.
If you see it like this, Hume is right.


But people agree on what the IS is and disagree on what the Ought ought to be, and yet all agree that the IS isn’t what they want - that they want change.
That alone is enough to make Hume’s argument invalid.

[ Edited: 26 June 2020 02:23 by Twissel]
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6645
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
27 June 2020 09:38
 

Could you say that the is ought conundrum depends on ones perception of what ought to be an is? It seems to me redundant but not reductive. Alone, I think it’s about logic, not reasoning, it’s unemotional and out of context with real life in a lot of ways. And on the other hand it’s moot in a deterministic universe.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5438
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 June 2020 22:22
 

I don’t think facts are value neutral. I don’t see how any sort of proposition can be value neutral. Not as I understand these concepts.

But Sam is also wrong. He says that values are a variety of fact.

The best way for me to understand is to say that facts and values have a conceptual distinction upon which both rely on.

The means to an outcome must be distinct from our preference of that outcome. I don’t see how we can communicate about goals otherwise.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5783
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
30 June 2020 01:53
 
Brick Bungalow - 28 June 2020 10:22 PM

The means to an outcome must be distinct from our preference of that outcome. I don’t see how we can communicate about goals otherwise.

This is nothing but the expression of a preference (about means).

The degree of intellectual laziness exhibited in discussions of “is-ought” is reflected by just this kind of reluctance to “see how we can communicate about goals”, all in the absence of any stated goals. And it’s no wonder that you don’t see. Goals are preferences; you’re welcome to speak up and write intellectually lazy shit like this. Yes, let’s keep it intellectually pretentious while spewing triviality.

Twissel - 26 June 2020 02:16 AM

you are using two different meaning of “neutral” interchangeably here. which is the source of the error.

Facts might be neutral in that everyone, using appropriate methods, can arrive at them regardless of individual disposition.
But they are not neutral in what they mean for people.

Of course, the second common result of trying to discuss “is-ought” consists of self-important statements of the obvious while entirely missing the point. You know, as if the point were not to broadcast intellectual laziness about the fact that people have opinions. Ask yourself why you can’t resist trying to make statements about “is-ought” instead of statements addressing what people have said about it. Oh, wait. Somebody did say, “Sam Harris is wrong.” Swell. There’s nothing left but the history of this irresistibly stupid conversation.

 

[ Edited: 30 June 2020 02:04 by Traces Elk]