/lit/ - Literature

Do you also reject epistemic and prudential 'oughts'?

Like, you ought not believe contradictions. And you ought to put on oven mitts before taking something hot out of the oven.

>>10580234
ethics is about choice between options that arent immediately recognized as harmful for an individual or society, thats the interesting part, not cooking.

Congrats on finally taking phil 101. Yes at the very base level there is no inherent morality. You have to decide for yourself whether you want to brush your teeth or not.

>>10580257
Seems wrong and irrelevant.

I take it to be a paradigmatic moral 'ought' that you ought not choose an option that is immediately recognizable as harmful to society. Op seems to have doubts about those. I'm wondering if these doubts extend to all oughts (is this a worry about normativity in general?), or if there's supposed to be some special problem for moral oughts.

>>10580177
Traditional religions/societies have dealt with practical issues, like when people should have sex, or what foods to eat. They have various answers, which we're supposed to partially ignore if we want to get laid.

Academic philosophy is mostly a bunch of manchild fedoras (or their female equivalent). They mostly focus on nonsense and politics.

>>10580177
>derives an is from an ought
summation of philosophy and all human thinking in general

>>10580177
>I've intellectually masturbated myself into impotence
like the most mundane of clockwork

>>10580177
So what SHOULD you do? Ask yourself that. If you come up with no answers, or the answers have no good justification then you don't know what it is you should do, which is shit because there's a fuckton of things you COULD do and without that justification you'll probably succumb to whimsical wants and over-fulfill biological needs, and your life will be sad in the end.

>>10580177
>Do people unironically believe it is possible for there to be an "ought"?
Yes, plenty of them, in fact, the majority of philosophers who do work in ethics and philosophers in general think moral realism is correct.
>Am I just an edgy retard for thinking morality doesn't exist?
Probably yes. Not that you can't be smart, informed on the subject AND think moral anti-realism is correct, but you probably don't fall in that category.
>>10580262
wrong
>>10580329
wrong
Also, where the fuck is the old-style captcha?

>>10580291
this would imply that animals have ethics, since you assign a "paradigmatic ought" to every action that doesnt result in self-harm.

>>10580335
You're an idiot. Stop sharing your opinions.

>>10580377
>Yes, plenty of them, in fact, the majority of philosophers who do work in ethics and philosophers in general think moral realism is correct.
doubt that is true and even if it was true, it's not an argument.

>>10580399
>doubt that is true
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>even if it was true, it's not an argument.
I didn't make an argument, I answered his question. If I wanted to make an argument, I'd have made some probabilistic argument that showed how you should probably go with the opinion of actual academics rather than anons on 4chan.

>>10580406
>https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
>56%
thats not a significant majority at all

> I'd have made some probabilistic argument that showed how you should probably go with the opinion of actual academics rather than anons on 4chan.
thanks for not doing that because it would open a whole other can of worms

>>10580399
Was it supposed to be an argument? Maybe he was just answering OP's question.

But yeah, morals don't real, not in a basal, ontological sense anyway. I think it's impossible for us to "think" and conceptualize the world (and our functioning in it) *without* (pre)supposing "oughts" (much like we cannot escape the presuppositions of causality and free agency in our thinking), but that doesn't mean we can actually demonstrate any kind of moral realness.

>>10580406
>https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Fuck me, those stats are depressing.

>>10580177
OP is just a flase-flagging Christcuck

the veil of ignorance is bullshit. you can't take the decision maker out of the equation and then ask him to make a decision. every thought requires a conscious mind to answer it, and that conscious mind is the sum of all their experiences, it's not going to be able to give a purely objective "opinion" since it not able to put itself in the shoes of every other being in existence.

nice thought experiment but ultimately flawed in practice.

>>10580177
>morality doesn't exist
>stop this!
>It's immoral to talk about your morality!
>it is wrong to think of Right and Wrong!
>I am hungry, I have food, I SHOULDNT EAT IT, No Ought From An Is!
>There are clouds in the sky, they are ready to become water, THEY OUGHT NOT HOWEVER

>>10580427
You mean, like God's?

>>10580412
>thats not a significant majority at all
It's a majority and it's double the next option. This is philosophy, not science, you don't get overwhelming majorities.
>thanks for not doing that because it would open a whole other can of worms
Only if you think the argument from authority is unironically a fallacy when expressed probabilistically.

>>10580417
Why?

>>10580177
After living and studying a good amount, I've personally arrived at a deontological ethic mixed in with virtue ethics. This works for me; leaves me feeling balanced.

>>10580445
>Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?

>Accept or lean toward: objective (41.0%)
>Accept or lean toward: subjective (34.5%)
>Other (24.5%)


>Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

>Accept or lean toward: compatibilism (59.1%)
>Other (14.9%)
>Accept or lean toward: libertarianism (13.7%)
>Accept or lean toward: no free will (12.2%)

can op point out where he disagrees exactly?

>>10580177
>Do people unironically believe it is possible for there to be an "ought"?
No
>Is everyone who does a meme like pic related?
Yes
>Who are these people that are standing behind the veil of ignorance?
Not sure what that means
>Am I just an edgy retard for thinking morality doesn't exist?
No
>What is the /lit/ opinion on morality?
If you retract pragmatism that favors social interactions one would consider moral you already retracted 99% of what people consider morality.
Most people just WANT morality to exist for their or at least their societies benefit.

Never really saw a convinced let alone convincing person who believed in morality.

>>10580442
Don't mean to comment on your little back&forth there, but...
>Only if you think the argument from authority is unironically a fallacy when expressed probabilistically.
It literally is *always* a fallacy, because the line of reasoning which an appeal to authority entails (X is true *because* Y said so) is an unsalvageable non-sequitur.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, though. What you're calling a "probabilistic expression of an appeal to authority" is simply not an appeal to authority at all, but more along the lines of "Whenever an instance of X was espoused by a significant number of Y in the past, said Past X had a tendency to be true, therefore, a belief in the probable truth of Current X as espoused by a significant number of Y right now is also justified".

Again, this is neither a fallacy, nor a "non-fallacious appeal to authority", which doesn't exist. You're appealing to the predictive reliability of induction.

>>10580480
Not op but error theory is the right theory.

>>10580480
The very first green arrow.

>>10580432
Trying way too hard, being way too dumb.

>>10580453
Again, so?

>>10580506
>muh queerness
Stellar argument

>>10580559
What do you mean "again"? This is your first "so".

>>10580234
Hypotheticalism, biatch.
>ought not believe contradictions
laughing_graham_priest.mp3

>>10580559
You don't have to agree with me, nor do I care to convince you of anything. To me, it's just saddening to know that 59% of all philosophers in academia believe in the harebrained, incoherent snake oil that is compatibilism.

>>10580573
Sorry, wrong thread, just meant to say "so?"
>>10580584
Maybe you should consider that if 59% of academic philosopher believe it to be the better of the options, compatibilism isn't that incoherent and harebrained.

>>10580573
Fucking rekt

>>10580589
>Maybe you should consider that if 59% of academic philosopher believe it to be the better of the options, compatibilism isn't that incoherent and harebrained.
Its popularity is the very reason why I've read so many harebrained and incoherent papers and articles on compatibilism to begin with.

If you want to disagree, you can't get around touching the actual meat, though, the actual compatibilist arguments, that is. You can't just assert a probabilistic truth and then leave it at that. I mean, you can, obviously, but that seems to serve only one's feeling of "agreeing with the right side", rather than to facilitate an actual understanding of the subject. It's not that I don't *want* to see the coherence in compatibilism, it's just that whenever I look for it, I find a sugar-coating of determinism or flat out nonsense.

>>10580607
I'm not making the argument for compatibilism being true, I'm making an argument for compatibilism not being that stupid.

>>10580621
Fair enough.

>>10580234
If I have a certain factual belief I don't see why not having that belief is immoral. I can see that putting gloves on before taking something out of the oven protects your hands but don't see what that has to do with morality, is pic related really convincing to you? Why should my hand not be burned?
>>10580352
Ok I asked myself that and though I can think of things I WANT to do (I do have various desires) I don't see what I SHOULD do. Where does that SHOULD come from. On introspection the only moral system that would approve of everything I want to do is Egoism.
>>10580377
So how do you get an "ought"? I haven't found any philosopher I have read on the subject convincing at all. Mention someone and we can discuss their ideas.
>>10580432
I never said to stop anything. I don't think people ought not talk about morality or believe there is Right and Wrong, like I said in the post I don't see how you can get any ought. I want to eat it, is morality just doing what I want? Why should I just do what I want. There are clouds, sometimes it rains, denying morality isn't the same thing as denying the rain. Denying "ought" isn't the same thing as denying "is". At least as far as I can see.
>>10580480
The first green arrow. I don't see how we can get to "ought".

t. OP

ITT: dunning kruger

>>10580648
>So how do you get an "ought"?
it depends.
A moral naturalist and a moral non-naturalist are going to give very different reasons as to how you can do that.
Which one would you be more interested in?

>>10580655
ITP: cowardly non-specificity

>>10580701
Savage

>>10580681
i'm a different anon than the one you asked. but can you elaborate on each of those options?

i'm slightly retarded but curious about this issue.

>>10580775
Well, a moral non-naturalist might not even start from an is, he's just going to go straight to an ought which we can graps by intuition or interaction with God, for example. Mind you that non-natural doesn't necessarily mean supernatural.
A moral naturalist, like me, on the other hand might point out that certain natural properties are just what we mean by moral. For example, a consequentialist might say that suffering or happiness are intrinsecally different from other things, while still being natural, and they, for various reasons, reflect certain oughts. I fall under virtue ethics, so I think that by employing abductive reasoning and teleonomy, we can find out what the features and functions of human beings are, and morality is just going to be about the excellence of some of these traits.

>>10580802
thanks. as far as i know the current understanding in neuroscience is that morality as arises as an a posteriori rationalization of moral feelings. the approach through virtue ethics it's interesting though. i'm going to try to read up on that

>>10580821
>i'm going to try to read up on that
Definitely read After Virtue

>>10580648
>Ok I asked myself that and though I can think of things I WANT to do (I do have various desires) I don't see what I SHOULD do. Where does that SHOULD come from. On introspection the only moral system that would approve of everything I want to do is Egoism
There has certainly been times when you knew that you had to do something you didn't like or didn't want, but it had to be done nonetheless. That is the SHOULD

>>10580802
I agree there are some features of human beings we can find out. I don't see what makes some of these virtues. Why ought we to excel in these traits.
>>10581402
Usually if I feel I need to do something even though I don't want to it is because though the action is not something I want to do the result is something I want to have. I study because I like knowing things and I want job security and money, though studying itself is usually bothersome. Im not sure I can think of an example from personal experience that does not fall into this category maybe you can give me an example. In any case in your view is morality just what we feel is morality? Then isn't that not moral realism because different people will feel different things are moral. Do you believe in objective moral facts?