Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm The Dude!First off, should I address you as dude or bub? I'd hate to make a faux pas.
Just to be clear, I really mean true in the formal logic sense. As in "One ought not murder" is a true fact just like "The Earth is round" is a true fact. Do you still think it's true? If so, how do you prove it? Is there some way to observe/measure/calculate an "ought" in the real world?Second, obviously that's true. Murder leads to bad outcomes for yourself. Don't do it! You'll regret it.
Ought indicates duty or correctness. So for sure you have a duty not to murder. That duty is imposed by society. The evidence of this can be observed in many forms of indoctrination as well as in the operation of our legal system. This is as evident as the shape of the earth.I'm The Dude!
Just to be clear, I really mean true in the formal logic sense. As in "One ought not murder" is a true fact just like "The Earth is round" is a true fact. Do you still think it's true? If so, how do you prove it? Is there some way to observe/measure/calculate an "ought" in the real world?
Why should we fulfill our duties?Ought indicates duty or correctness. So for sure you have a duty not to murder. That duty is imposed by society. The evidence of this can be observed in many forms of indoctrination as well as in the operation of our legal system. This is as evident as the shape of the earth.
One shouldn't murder because murder isn't proper, okay. Why should I be proper?As for correctness, there's what's deemed proper, which is defined socially. Murder is objectively not proper.
Eh, I'm glad we're getting closer to agreeing, I guess. But this reasoning is bizarre. "Is it true that I shouldn't murder?" is the question. If you really need another word other than "ought" then "Do I have a duty to not murder?" I guess works, but you answered that in the affirmative already.Then there's correctness as in being true. So the question becomes: "is it true to not murder?" This is a nonsense question. In this respect the statement "one ought not murder" is neither true nor false but instead is absurd.
Eh, I can wrap my head around it. I mean, it's wrong, but it makes sense. Basically, imagine for every choice there are two potential realities. Ought implies a future event that hasn't been realized yet. One of those realities is the one that's supposed to happen (or the ideal) and one of those realities is not supposed to happen (the wrong one). All is right with the world, and all that. What makes a reality ideal, though? That's all about personal feelings. So lemme dream up how this conversation will go based on the reasons you've given me so far.Going through this little exercise just reinforces my sense that "ought" is only about the emotional sanctions or rewards that biological and social conditioning places on our actions. It makes no sense to ask about ought in terms of anything else.
Doesnt matter. "Ought not murder" is explained by the fact that society imposes a duty to not murder. The meaning of ought is now satisfied by the facts. (See my next paragraph for my explanation)Why should we fulfill our duties?
Sounds like we pretty much agree. Especially on this point: "I agree the idea of a true 'ought' is" absurd". Seems to me that "ought" in the normative sense describes a relationship between an individual and a body of authority. The authority could be society, or God, or a parent. To ask what is "ought" by itself, without it being contingent on an authority is to simply break the meaning or idea of the word.Eh, I can wrap my head around it. I mean, it's wrong, but it makes sense. Basically, imagine for every choice there are two potential realities. Ought implies a future event that hasn't been realized yet. One of those realities is the one that's supposed to happen (or the ideal) and one of those realities is not supposed to happen (the wrong one). All is right with the world, and all that. What makes a reality ideal, though? That's all about personal feelings. So lemme dream up how this conversation will go based on the reasons you've given me so far.
D-Wood: You shouldn't murder.
Orel: Why shouldn't I murder?
D-Wood: Because you have a duty imposed by society to not murder.
Orel: Why should I fulfill my duties?
D-Wood: Because society will penalize you if you don't.
Orel: Why shouldn't I receive penalties?
D-Wood: Because you won't like the penalties.
Orel: Why should I only get what I like?
And so on. Or we'll hit the bottom and something will just seem so obvious that you think I'm bonkers for asking "Why?" but they all have to be justified for the top to be justified. Every single step hinges on the next step being true. You can try it if you want, maybe the questions and answers will be a little different. But there's no brute fact of an "ought" so it can't be justified, ultimately.
It's only absurd when you stop to think about it, though. It comes naturally. I agree the idea of a true "ought" is absurd, but we all do it all the time. Humans have a hard time distinguishing between our perceptions and reality. I mean, look at how we describe subjective things. "This chocolate ice cream is delicious". Really? Deliciousness is a property of chocolate ice cream? Of course not. Deliciousness describes the experience I have with chocolate ice cream that happens entirely inside my brain. Not in the ice cream. Not on my tongue.
When we reason about morality, we're reasoning about how to make the world a place that we'll be happy to live in it. We all just take for granted the premise that "I ought to be happy". We assume it's a goal we should work towards. It can't really be true in any real sense, but so what? The opposite isn't true either.
You've literally justified "ought" with "Because X said so!", lol.Doesnt matter. "Ought not murder" is explained by the fact that society imposes a duty to not murder. The meaning of ought is now satisfied by the facts. (See my next paragraph for my explanation)
I said "ought" doesnt require a justification (unless it violates some sort of popular intuition.) Society functions fine saying "people ought not murder" without providing a rationale.You've literally justified "ought" with "Because X said so!", lol.
Things require justification to be true. If you're saying we don't need justification to drive action, then yeah, of course. I can't tell if you actually agree that no "ought" statements are true or not. You interchanged "ought" with "duty" and then said it's a fact we have duty because society imposes it, so I don't know what you're getting at anymore.I said "ought" doesnt require a justification (unless it violates some sort of popular intuition.) Society functions fine saying "people ought not murder" without providing a rationale.
I assert that all moral intuitions are Appeal To Emotion fallacies. Agree?If an ought command violates popular intuition, then people will argue for a new command that does appeal to popular intuition. Never does this have to be justified "all the way down", but only as deep as peoples moral intuitions.
Just to be clear, I really mean true in the formal logic sense. As in "One ought not murder" is a true fact just like "The Earth is round" is a true fact. Do you still think it's true? If so, how do you prove it? Is there some way to observe/measure/calculate an "ought" in the real world?
To ask what is "ought" by itself, without it being contingent on an authority is to simply break the meaning or idea of the word.
But there's no brute fact of an "ought" so it can't be justified, ultimately.
Nice try, but I replied because I felt like it, not because it was the right thing to do.If you respond to this message then you have already justified the ought-proposition that I posed to you.
Nice try, but I replied because I felt like it, not because it was the right thing to do.
P1 I like getting Zippy's goat.
P2 Responding to Zippy's posts gets Zippy's goat
C I ought to respond to Zippy's post
That ain't a valid argument, ergo that "ought" ain't justified.
I noticed you lurking, Zippy. Did you see the post in your thread where I actually spelled out the whole argument about how it's impossible to justify an "ought"? Complete with demonstrations.
Even if I thought those exact words to myself, that doesn't make it "justified". Even if I attempt to justify such a claim, that doesn't make the claim "justified". It's only justified if it is a fact.Whatever your justification, you determined that it ought be done. You justified an 'ought' as soon as you clicked "Reply to Thread." You implicitly said to yourself, "I ought to reply to this post."
All your goat belong to us.
You can't have an "ought" in the conclusion without an "ought" in the premises or you've got yourself an invalid argument. Oughts are absurd because it's impossible for them to be true, but we treat them as true statements.Ah, but in order to maintain your claim that the argument is invalid you would have to demonstrate that preferences cannot justify 'oughts'. In order to do that you will have to move away from your claim that 'oughts' are absurd. If C is absurd in itself then it cannot enter into an evaluation of validity.
Is there Objective Morality?I did not. Feel free to link.
Even if I thought those exact words to myself, that doesn't make it "justified". Even if I attempt to justify such a claim, that doesn't make the claim "justified". It's only justified if it is a fact.
Oughts are absurd because it's impossible for them to be true, but we treat them as true statements.
My little argument only works if "I ought to get what I like" is also true. And "I ought to get what I like" can only be justified with another argument with another "ought" statement and so on.
It's out of order.I don't find this argument convincing at all, really.
Well don't beat around the bush Philo-style, just jump right into the demonstration!Practical propositions are different from speculative propositions. I agree that practical propositions cannot be justified in the same manner that speculative propositions are justified, but that doesn't mean they can't be justified.
If "I ought to respond" is true, then "I ought not respond" is necessarily false. They can't both be true, but they can both be false (and they are). Not responding wouldn't be an incorrect choice. You know me, though. I just do what feels good.If, "I ought to respond to Zippy's post," was false, then why did you respond? The fact that you responded means that you yourself held the ought-proposition to be true.
No offense, but I won't respond to two separate conversations in two separate threads with the same person. I linked it as a reference for you to catch up to my conversation with DWood, not to spread our discussion out all over the interwebs.I will look at it when I get a chance.
It's out of order.
1 If it can't be justified, then it is not a fact
2 "Ought" propositions cannot be justified
3 "Ought" propositions are not facts
Well don't beat around the bush Philo-style, just jump right into the demonstration!
If "I ought to respond" is true, then "I ought not respond" is necessarily false. They can't both be true, but they can both be false (and they are). Not responding wouldn't be an incorrect choice. You know me, though. I just do what feels good.
No offense, but I won't respond to two separate conversations in two separate threads with the same person. I linked it as a reference for you to catch up to my conversation with DWood, not to spread our discussion out all over the interwebs.
@zippy2006, I think I am agreement with you.
Fact: A thing that is known or proven to be trueMy answer is the same. Why believe (1)? Why believe (2)? What is a fact?
You said you could justify a practical proposition, I wanted to see you do it so I know how you go about it.I am asking you to defend (1) or define "justify".
It does not entail that. I don't have to believe I would have been wrong to not respond, that's silly.And the fact that you responded entails that you held "I ought to respond" to be true and "I ought not respond" to be false. You justified these 'oughts' on the basis of your feelings. Else, you will have to explain how you did X while not believing that you ought to do X, and what your special definition of "ought" is.
You and I have already been through this, Tinker, but since you and Zippy seem to be in agreement, I'll demonstrate for him too. The following argument:I think 'oughts' are justifiable if they are the conclusion from a sound syllogism. (I want to start the car. Starting the cars requires that I push the button. I ought to push the button.)
Fact: A thing that is known or proven to be true
Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness
Justify: Demonstrate the truth of something by evidence or argument.
I've been using "justify" as opposed to "prove" to avoid the proverbial "Proof is for math and alcohol, bro!" response.
You said you could justify a practical proposition, I wanted to see you do it so I know how you go about it.
It does not entail that. I don't have to believe I would have been wrong to not respond, that's silly.Else, you will have to explain how you did X while not believing that you ought to do X...
You and I have already been through this, Tinker, but since you and Zippy seem to be in agreement, I'll demonstrate for him too. The following argument:
P1 I want to start the car
P2 The car will start if and only if I push the button
C I ought to push the button
The argument is invalid. To reach that conclusion the following premise must be true:
P3 I ought to do what I want...
It's absurd that sometimes we ought not do whatever we want? That's absurd. It also kind of destroys morality, no? I see your "generally speaking" in there to account for exceptions, but there are way too many exceptions.Oh, I think the argument is undeniably valid, and it is sound for anyone who truly holds the two premises. If you want to start the car and only the button will start the car, then you should definitely push the button.
And yes, P3 is definitely true, understood correctly. I.e. Ceteris Paribus, I ought to do what I want. It would be absurd to claim that, generally speaking, we ought to do what we do not want, just as it would be absurd to grant P1 & P2 while denying C. We could also phrase it this way: ceteris paribus, I ought to undertake the means necessary to achieve my goals.
It's absurd that sometimes we ought not do whatever we want? That's absurd.
Side note. I see our posts growing out of control already. I'm not down for long responses. After a year of trying, I finally landed my PS5 the other day, so I am far too busy cutting down Mongols in Ghost of Tsushima to be writing dissertations. I do have to take short breaks from slaying my foes from time to time, so I'll address whatever I find to be the crux of your argument. But large portions of your responses are going to be redacted; which would be rude of me if I didn't warn you ahead of time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?