[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 112 KB, 800x970, George III.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6917577 No.6917577 [Reply] [Original]

I don't understand Hume's Is-ought problem.
SOMEONE
HELP

>> No.6917587

>>6917577
It basically means that just because something is a way doesn't mean that way is necessitated. It kind of boils down to efficacy/=/purpose.

>> No.6917602

Just because night is straight after day, doesn't mean day causes night

>> No.6917660

He meant that you cannot (logically) derive a proposition that contains an 'ought' from a set of propositions that are 'ought-less', i.e. are not moral propositions. Put another way, one cannot go from how things are (facts) to how things should be (prescriptive assertions; "you should/ought do x" etc.).

>> No.6917676

>>6917577
was he right about causality?

>> No.6917681

>>6917587
>>6917602
>>6917676
All three of you are missing the point

>> No.6917702

>>6917681
why don't you enlighten us then and write something useful you fucking cuck faggot

>> No.6917719

>>6917587

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. See:

>>6917660

>> No.6917760

Dude, why are you complaining about my slashing your tyres? Just because it's a car doesn't mean that it OUGHT to have working tyres, man.

>> No.6917777

>Hume's a meme philosopher now
Fuck you assholes

>> No.6917778

>>6917760
Yes, cars used for baby murder should have intact tires.

>> No.6917798

i think it's just the naturalistic fallacy.

eg in utilitarianism, bentham states that pain and pleasure are the twin masters that drive human beings actions, and therefore we ought to do that which increases pleasure and decreases pain. but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. and there's no way to get a moralistic "ought" conclusion from an observational "is" premise without committing the naturalistic fallacy, tbh.

>> No.6917825

>>6917798
>naturalistic fallacy.
No, naturalistic fallacy is: "Since it is natural, it is good." (consider cases of pedophilia, etc.) Little to do with the is-ought problem.

>> No.6917832

>>6917778
now this is sophistry

>> No.6917896

>>6917577
http://branemrys.blogspot.mx/2009/09/hume-on-ought-and-is-part-iii.html

Hume never postulated Hume's Guillotine, Hume's argument was about relations, not about propositions or statements (since this is false, you can derive ought statements from is statements)

>> No.6917911
File: 37 KB, 510x348, image(19).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6917911

>>6917825
>pedophilia
oh please

>> No.6917945

>>6917577
hume:
we get all of our sense of causality from observation
but there is no apparent principle that dictates just because something always has happened that the next time it will

>> No.6917954

>>6917945
likewise in morality and ethics, there is an analogous fallacy that hume claims philosophers commit by transitioning from fact-statements to claims about what should be

>> No.6917955

Aquinas btfod hume before he was born; I don't even know why we are discussing this fedora

>> No.6917956

>>6917577
All he's saying is that you can't find out what you should do just by looking at how things are.

>but don't I need to be informed in order to know what the right choice is?!

No, you need to be informed in order to know how to make the right choice.

>> No.6917964

>>6917955
how so?

>> No.6918242

>>6917955
This meme needs to stop right now, you fucking twat. General christposting is at least tolerable but this level of retardation is not even funny in a "look at how stupid that guy is" way. Just stop.

>> No.6918284
File: 80 KB, 600x800, typical heathen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6918284

if god doesn't exist you don't have to do what god tells you to

pretty epic tbh :)

>> No.6918335

>>6917577
"The car keys are in the refrigerator, therefore they are supposed to be in the refrigerator." is bullshit.

>> No.6918382

It's a logical statement: Just becausr somthing IS (you observe it to be/happen), doesn't mean it OUGHT to be this way (must always happen this way).

He uses this to demonstrate how many ethical claims are logically false, since they basically claim that: (This is how it is in the world right now) so -> (This is how it must be = the moral thing to do is the one which contributes to it.)

He also uses it to demonstrate the problem with Empiricism- saying that just because you saw, for example, water reach 100c and then boil, doesn't mean you can conclude that water boiles because it reaches the heat of 100c. You saw X followed by Y (IS), but it's a logical leap to just decide that X must be followed by Y (OUGHT), and therefore X causes Y.

>> No.6918815

>>6918382
anons
is this post /thread?

>> No.6918833

>>6918382
scientifically is this why there are just theories and no solid truths? because we can never account for every variable that could be acting on Y to follow X?

>> No.6918835

>>6918815
no
that was this post >>6917660
I'm honestly super surprised it's this hard for you all to grasp this concept, it's practically what it says on the tin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

>> No.6918854

>>6918242
Okay Sam Harris calm down

>> No.6918858

>>6917660
Has there ever been an argument that morals are actually predictive instead of prescriptive? Is there any reason why all instances of "It should be" can't be shifted to "It will be"?

>> No.6918893

>>6918858
Morality can't be by definition predictive.

>> No.6918894

>>6918835
My comment (>>6918382) is basically >>6917660
but with some input about what he based on the is-ought problem.

>> No.6918911

>>6917577
You shouldn't OUGHT to steal just because everyone else IS stealing

>> No.6918917

>>6918894
your first sentence is completely orthogonal to the point of the is ought problem. its not about the shouldness of things that are, it's about the shouldness of things that could perhaps be, based on what is.

>> No.6918930

>>6918833
Not him, but:

A theory in layman's terms is a "guess". But a theory in the proper (Or rather scientific) definition is an overarching system of mechanisms that explains a given phenomenon due to (sufficient) evidence. Said evidence is accepted because a given thing will do something a certain way under specific circumstances. A theory also predicts future phenomenon. Theories can not only be tested, but also explain future phenomenon.

Cell theory is the theory that all life is made up of cells (Viruses may or may not be alive, but that's another point entirely). This theory explains much of biology (Organs, growth, biochemistry, nutrition, etc), it can be verified or falsified (If you look at this tissue really closely, do you see cells?), and it can be

But a theory is not a law. A law is "If we do X then Y will happen". It is a law that things fall when you drop them. It is a theory that explains why it falls. A law is a "solid truth" in that you can almost be entirely certain that when you do X you will get Y. In the Is-Ought issue, a law is the Is and a theory is the Ought. Theories are not always right.

>> No.6918958

>>6917719
The person you are replying to says the exact same thing as the post you are referring, just in less detail...

>just because something is a way doesn't mean that way is necessitated

>one cannot go from how things are (facts) to how things should be

>> No.6918988

>>6918930
Phlogiston was an old theory that attempted to explain how combustion and rusting happened. It was proposed that all matter contains "phlogiston", an element that violently expels itself from an object when said object is heated. The phlogiston would then be absorbed into the air until no phlogiston remained in the object (Total combustion/oxidation). If there was no air present, it would not combust. If the combusting object were placed in a sealed container the air would reach the maximum amount of phlogiston it could hold and thus the combustion would cease. Phlogiston theory takes several observations (Things burn in air, things don't burn in a lack of air, covering a burning thing stops the burning) and then formulates a mechanism as to how they happen. Phlogiston theory also predicts future phenomenon in that if you burn something it should decrease in weight as it is losing mass (The phlogiston going into the air).

But Phlogiston theory was falsified. Some things will gain in mass as they burn (IE, magnesium metal). This was accounted for by the idea that phlogiston might be lighter than air or had a negative mass. But, it was also shown that oxygen has mass and that things do not combust without oxygen, not air (Which is a mixture of various gases). Oxygen can be isolated and weighed, and if you add the oxygen from a container to another container containing a magnesium strip and subsequently ignite it the mass of the product will be the same as the mass of the oxygen and the magnesium. In this way, Phlogiston theory was not "disproved" but rather "Falsified". It is not that things do not burn, but rather that the mechanism by which they burn is not the one proposed by Phlogiston theory.

There are many theories that have been falsified. They include miasma theory (bad air causes diseases, not viruses/bacteria/etc as put forth by germ theory), vision emission theory (our eyes emit light which is how we see, we know have intromission theory where light enters the eyes from outside), labor theory of value (the value of an object comes from the amount of work put into making it, rather than how much someone is willing to give for it), luminiferous aether theory (light is a wave moving through an intangible sea of aether, rather than photons being a wave/particle), flat Earth (duh), hollow Earth (duh), neptunism (rocks come from the sea recrystallizing stuff, falsified by volcanism which proposed volcanoes do that instead).

But the thing with these obsolete theories is that none of them are outright wrong about everything. Rather, they explain a given phenomenon in a satisfactory manner but fail to explain further phenomenon (In the case of phlogiston, the increase of mass caused by oxidation).

>> No.6918990

>>6918917
I wrote it poorly but that's what I meant
Okay I accept my comment to be inferior ):

>> No.6919058

>>6918988
It is worth noting that as science advances we are more and more able to verify or falsify existing theories. We can actually "see" atoms and their bonds via electron microscopy. We can literally see viruses in action. Ought is becoming Is. Atomic theory and chemistry are no longer just theories, but are in fact swiftly becoming laws. The movement of electrons is no longer hypothesis but observable fact.

This might be what's partly causing "Scientism", but that's another topic.

>> No.6919069

>>6917896
this tbh

>> No.6919102

>>6917798
>>6917825
The natural phallusy is a case of is to ought.

>> No.6919119

>>6917660
From what I understand, isn't this undermining all of art and philosophy though?

>> No.6920228

>>6917777
quads confirm hume = meme

>> No.6920391

it IS true that you OUGHT to read a better philosopher

>> No.6920413

Hume shall be remembered as
>oh, that philosophag from 4chen? pfft fuck that guy
from now until the universe explodes.

>> No.6920443

>>6919119
>commit it to the flames

>> No.6921048
File: 189 KB, 703x1043, 0jheddd-fs8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6921048

>>6919058
we refine the causation, the chain of implication arrows ...=>X=>Y =>Z=>..., but there is argument that ought is becoming is, there is no argument that the causation is a good perspective to take beforehand, there is no argument for undertaking the ''explanation of the phenomena'', even less through the causation.

>> No.6921099

>>6920443
So he's a fedora tipper?

>> No.6921119

>>6917660
>>6919119
>>6920443
>>6921099
Yep, everything is all based upon assumptions. We may as well just post memes all day.

>> No.6921128

>>6921048
Tell me that isn't a real article. There is no God.

>> No.6921135

>>6921048
This is just too weird for me.

>> No.6921138

>>6921128
It's pol made

>> No.6921162

>>6921128
it is only love, the most beautiful thing on earth

>> No.6921245

>>6918858
I think you could make an argument that Kantian morality works this way so long as everyone is rational.

>> No.6921278
File: 148 KB, 750x1334, 1438574727570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6921278

>>6921128

>> No.6921288

>>6921278
would tbh