4chan archive /lit/ (index)
2012-09-23 08:34 3002349 Anonymous Deriving an ought from an is (Van-Gogh-069.jpg 550x413 77kB)
Sup /phil/. I've figured out solution to the is-ought problem. >murder *is* wrong (because I say it's wrong) >you *ought* not murder (because I say you ought not murder, motherfucker) Thoughts?

3 min later 3002357 Anonymous
well, you've used two English words correctly. Well done.

6 min later 3002372 Anonymous
>>3002357 thankyou

7 min later 3002376 Anonymous
Don't call me /phil/, you dork.

10 min later 3002381 Anonymous
"Ought" is not used like that. You ought to use it in a different way. I ought to be right, because I say so and I am often right. Isn't that so?

16 min later 3002393 Anonymous
>>3002381 No Why would I listen to you (or a god, or a etc) over myself? I trust my own judgment more than anyone else's.

18 min later 3002395 Anonymous
I like your premise, now justify your subjective opinion as objective morality.

20 min later 3002404 Anonymous
>>3002393 You didn't get the joke or ignored it.

21 min later 3002406 Anonymous
>>3002393 What if I told you that you are ALWAYS trusting your own judgment?

23 min later 3002412 Anonymous
>>3002395 I already did that. >because I say you ought not murder, motherfucker If god said this, it would be objective morality right? Well fuck what (a non-existent) god says. *I'm* saying it, motherfucker.

23 min later 3002414 Anonymous
wrong = ought not? That does not follow

24 min later 3002415 Anonymous
>>3002404 sorry it just wasn't that funny

25 min later 3002422 Anonymous
>>3002414 wrong=is the meta-ethical problem is how you get from an "is" to an "ought not". which I've solved in the OP

25 min later 3002423 Anonymous
>>3002393 You ought to do something assuming in this case that morality has authority. Assuming that morality does have authority since I do not want to make a case for amoralism right now, you'd act morally because you have reason. Additionally, I will assume you have reason.

26 min later 3002425 Anonymous
>>3002412 But, I'm God. Reality only exists through MY perception.

31 min later 3002441 Anonymous
>>3002425 no it doesn't sorry

48 min later 3002497 Anonymous
People are blind to their own values. If I say "that shit is deadly poisonous", you quickly think "I ought not eat that shit", because of two things: first, you trust me that it is indeed poisonous and secondly, you forget that you still can eat it. Yes, you'd be dead, but eating the shit and being dead is a valid option. Except that as we keep talking and deriving assumptions on top of assumptions, things can go really wrong. You begin to forget your options, you assimilate things in certainties and facts and not as words, which are treachery by nature. Suddenly, you see yourself living in a world of rules, laws, statistics, dogmas, and you don't really know how we got to them, you just assume you know. One of the tricks, in science, religion, politics, etc, is to make it seem that what you are saying is just so completely obvious, the other doesn't even blink. "Oh, the scientists said...", or using God's name for everything, or the buzz words we see politicians use or avoid all the time. Language is evidence of the way we think and now that everyone can reach everyone, it becomes simultaneously more dangerous and more diluted in its power. You realize that your "ought to", that you got from your parents, television, internet, all your friends, your school, everything... Is an "ought not" in the other side of the word for a billion of other kids, with parents, television, internet....

58 min later 3002538 Anonymous
>>3002497 Your point?

1.293 0.086