0

That there are no neutral claims involving “is” (or the verb to be) by our limited nature. I can see how this would solve a lot of problems, but not all the problems it may cause.

Just wondering if this is an existing criticism of Hume’s is/ought or his use of it.

I was thinking maybe it applies to platonism where independence precludes any human’s perfect characterization of the abstract. So we either shouldn’t utter any “is”’s about it /abstract objects, or realize any “is” we do say about them is loaded with oughts. That any claim of or toward platonism is an ought because of the independence aspect. But I would say this may extend to everything, we never have perfect knowledge by our nature.

(Maybe this is antithetical to the analytic tradition, and I’m certainly not ready and willing to mount that task! Does any philosopher go down this road?)

J Kusin
  • 2,668
  • 1
  • 7
  • 15
  • 2
    Ayn Rand infamously declared (through a character in her most long-winded novel, in a speech that goes on for like 80 actual physical pages IIRC), that "every 'is' implies an 'ought.'" Her reasoning was something like: the Law of Identity, when converted into a moral law, just says we are 'obligated' to act in acknowledgement that things are, in fact, what they are. Something like internal practical honesty. If she had figured to spell it out in those terms, it might've appeared more convincing, but her wording is marred by her fanaticism and personal translation issues. – Kristian Berry Apr 29 '22 at 15:44
  • 2
    @J Kusin Could you please clarify your question. Do you ask: Is any claim about existence already a claim about an ought? - Which philosophers support this view? - Do they consider their view a criticism of Hume's is-ought discrimination? Thanks. – Jo Wehler Apr 29 '22 at 15:53
  • @KristianBerry Anyone but her? Haha thank you. Should be worth looking at if only to see the attempt is unsuccessful. Ty – J Kusin Apr 29 '22 at 16:06
  • @JoWehler Yes Jo that is my main question thanks. – J Kusin Apr 29 '22 at 16:07
  • There's a much older tradition that reads the relation of goodness off existence, and assimilates evil to nothingness instead, though by muddying the waters of neutrality vs. antithesis I think that tradition invalidates itself (I mean, goodness is not so strict that there is nothing neutral between it and false darkness). Also, their derivation is not as convincing as possible in the first place; at best, they seem like they're "on to something" but they've never found the right way to make their actual point, not even inside their own minds. – Kristian Berry Apr 29 '22 at 16:37
  • @KristianBerry first thing which came to mind was Star Wars :) what is this alluding to for curiosity? – J Kusin Apr 29 '22 at 16:47
  • 1
    Neo-Platonism, IIRC, with some of the logical genetics of that theory passed down to e.g. Aquinas (who cryptically remarked that God is "subsistent being itself" or something). I suspect it survives in a lot of Christian or neo-Christian circles to this day, with various qualifiers and hardly much popularity to its name (Satan's antithetical character is more engaging to the average imagination, so to say; not that this is mistaken!). If I have more worth saying (IDK, I don't think I probably do) on this topic, I will leave it as an answer proper. – Kristian Berry Apr 29 '22 at 17:41
  • Isn't this just, all moral realists? Sam Harris, for instance. He is very ill-informed about Hume's point about Is-Ought: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70896/is-sam-harriss-view-of-morality-innovating-what-philosophers-innovated-specifi/70902#70902 I argue that for secular thinkers, there can't be detailed specific moralities drawn from observations, but there can be compelling heuristics drawn: ('What are the secular arguments for moral realism?')[https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/90421/what-are-the-secular-arguments-for-moral-realism/90805#90805] – CriglCragl Apr 29 '22 at 21:14
  • @CriglCragl In your conception of meaning and language (as navigating social group behavior?) are we going from “oughts” (how to act socially-ought smile to show appreciation, ought to exchange ideas and meaning socially to learn, etc), to “is”‘s (or close to it)? “Is” as similar to compelling heuristics about how the world is. – J Kusin Apr 29 '22 at 23:26
  • @JKusin: Bit of a confusing sentence there. Intersubjectivity, & game-theory approaches do not impose specific moralities, but, we can use them to understand how and why morality emerges, and take a deeper view of the consequences of interventions and changes, in ways that different people can agree on, using evidence. We still have to start somewhere in particular, & navigate from there. – CriglCragl Apr 30 '22 at 09:50

0 Answers0