Clarifying Hume's is-ought divide

[Anonymous No.10720342]

Is a claim like "murder is bad" an "ought" statement or an unfalsifiable "is" statement? It declares something that murder is, but I could also argue that a description like "bad" or "good" really means "what ought/ought not to exist."
What do you think? I'm trying to stress-test this model/diagram I came up with for an essay I'm writing about the implications of the notion of a sex/gender schism (not for school, just to pass the time and organize my thoughts) and this question gave me pause.

[Anonymous No.10720405]

>>10720342
it's an ought statement, obviously. it's evaluative. an is statement is just descriptive. something like "murder happens"

[Anonymous No.10720425]

>>10720342
Now here's the thing, there are two interpretations:
1- 'A is bad' does not imply 'You ought not to do A'. Similarly, 'A is good' does not imply 'You ought to do A'.
2- 'A is bad' translates to 'You ought not to do A'.

[Anonymous No.10720439]

>>10720425
I forgot to point out, but the main difference is that you can throw God creating values as a counter argument to 2, but not to 1.

[Anonymous No.10720476]

>>10720405
This line of reasoning only makes sense to me if you consider all "is" statements falsifiable, which I don't. "God exists" is an "is" statement that doesn't inherently speak to what ought to be at all, yet is still unfalsifiable.
>>10720425
This is where I'm at now, but I can't choose an answer. I can't think of a very strong argument for or against either. Maybe a good route to go down would be considering someone saying "X is good, but Y could be better in its place." Are they saying A ought to exist if it's only under the condition that B doesn't?
Fuck man, why do semantics have to fuck everything up
>>10720439
>you can throw God creating values as a counter argument to 2
Could you elaborate on this?

[Anonymous No.10720481]

>>10720425
How the fuck do people defend the first possibility?

Why would Hume adopt a basically moral nihilist position with regard to modal/prescriptive statements, ethical normativity, etc., but then allow predication of "absolute" valorizations in nature, in itself?

[Anonymous No.10720491]

>>10720476
>This line of reasoning only makes sense to me if you consider all "is" statements falsifiable, which I don't.
why would falsifiability have anything to do with it?

>>10720425
1 literally makes no fucking sense. the point is that "x is bad" clearly means you shouldn't do it.

[Anonymous No.10720515]

>>10720491
>why would falsifiability have anything to do with it?
Because your logic seems to me predicated on the notion that an "is" can't be evaluative, and that's the problem I'm trying to solve. I don't know if "good" should be equated with "ought to be" or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.10720520]

>>10720491
>the point is that "x is bad" clearly means you shouldn't do it.
How about "x is bad but y is worse"?

[Anonymous No.10720525]

>>10720476
>>you can throw God creating values as a counter argument to 2
>Could you elaborate on this?
Now this some real nigga ass advanced theoepistemology right here, but if God DOES exist, theorically he hould be capable of objectively defining things as good and bad. I.e. a christian may argue against moral skepticism by pointing to the Bible and saying that God has declared some things good and some things not. When you claim that 'it being bad doesn't imply you ought not to', you basically claim that absolutely no objective fact can compromise subjective emotion, so EVEN THEN ethics are impossible.
That actually reminds me Hume claimed that action can only originate in emotions, so that's probably the canonical interpretation.
>>10720481
It doesn't, it just says "EVEN THEN FAGGOT".
>>10720491
t. pleb

[Anonymous No.10720531]

>>10720515
but falsifiability is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. the sentence "x is good" is evaluative. your sentence "god exists" is just descriptive. he either exists or he doesn't exist. the statement is either true or false, but it's not evaluative

>>10720520
>How about "x is bad but y is worse"?
that's evaluative...

[Anonymous No.10720541]

>>10720520
>literally utilitarianism but real sneaky