can there be a legitimate science of ethics? >no science tells you what "is". ethics tells you what "ought" to be. know the difference. science, not even once.

File: 26 KB, 300x300, 1326509750022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:41:17 2012 No.4252872 [Reply] [Original]

can there be a legitimate science of ethics?

>no

science tells you what "is".
ethics tells you what "ought" to be.

know the difference. science, not even once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:45:41 2012 No.4252885 Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" It's not perfect but it's worth a read (or listen if you wanna torrent the audiobook)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:46:49 2012 No.4252888 >>4252885 I guess Harris hasn't figured out the difference between "ought" and "is"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:47:58 2012 No.4252890 >>4252885 Came here to say this.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:52:30 2012 No.4252899

Let me sum up his thesis from my memory:

Morality has to do with the happiness and suffering of conscious creatures.

These feelings occur at the level of the brain and are real physical, measurable changes. Although in practice, this may or current technology limits how much we can learn about the exact mechanisms.

States of the brain result from states of the world.

A science of morality may be formed when we know what states of the world cause certain brain states.

Crude. Again, look into it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:53:37 2012 No.4252906 >>4252899 doesn't say how we should treat those states and what states there ought to be and why saying a brain has state X is a neat fact saying the brain OUGHT to have state X in this situation but not that--is a different matter altogether

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:56:02 2012 No.4252913 Given the premise that certain brain states are good and desirable, we can easily go from there. It's in no way an objectively sound premise, but it seems reasonable nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:57:02 2012 No.4252915 >>4252899 He's an utilitarianism, and all he says is wowitsfuckingnothing.jpg

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 03:57:09 2012 No.4252916

>>4252888
Seems like someone has not yet read the book.

He tackles the fact-value distinction in the first chapter. His main contention with the 'is/ought' distinction iirc is that if we cannot derive value from fact, then where exactly do we derive it? If not religion, which is itself problematic, then nowhere. He argues that ultimately morality should be axiomatically grounded in the notion of human flourishing, and that's where science has something to tell us.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:01:34 2012 No.4252925

Well basically you have to first accept that feeling happy is something real and worth wanting. Additionally, he points out that differences in well being DO exist by using the most extreme examples he can find and simply asking if the reader agrees there is a difference.
Harris breaks this down pretty early and at some length. Essentially says if you can't agree with him on that point, there isn't much of a reason to listen to him at all.

So the ought-to state is happiness because it is empirically true that this makes people...well...happy.

He addresses special cases like psycho/sociopaths. Essentially, just like the people who cannot understand that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime cannot take part in a physics discussion, the people who fail to see why love is more conducive to happiness than hate will be unable to participare in a discussion of morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:04:57 2012 No.4252931 >>4252925 I'll elaborate by saying I've though long and hard about this and the comparison is slightly off because the people who disagree or cannot understand are themselves experiencing contrary evidence as opposed to just not understanding.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:07:13 2012 No.4252936

>>4252931

Elaborating even more: I've come to the conclusion that the most ethical act to perform on the planet when the technology exists is a instantaneous mass extinction on everything. This will flatten the moral landscape to a net of 0 for all time. As opposed to the ongoing negative net that surely exists now for all animals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:12:54 2012 No.4252944 >>4252936 Why not, say, a net +100 for every conscious living organism on the planet if we have the technology?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:13:01 2012 No.4252947 what astounds me about this thread is that no one has mentioned Plato's Charmides dialogue

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:13:54 2012 No.4252945 He makes me ashamed to be a philosophy major.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:14:09 2012 No.4252949 File: 34 KB, 240x249, trollthread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:17:26 2012 No.4252952

>>4252944
hey that is actually a good point. You know, it had always just seemed to me that that technology would be just so much farther off than glassing the planet.

Anyway, I suppose i was also driven to that conclusion by the discussion about total happiness or average happiness or median happiness. Which one is the best? that's always been tricky for me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:30:01 2012 No.4252984 >>4252872 Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:32:09 2012 No.4252990 >>4252984 Anon Harris' The couldn't be more latescape capcha:DNA soldez

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:33:18 2012 No.4252994 >>4252872 what is: >ought ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:34:33 2012 No.4252999 >>4252994 >2012 >should

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:39:06 2012 No.4253010 >>4252999 not helping... let me try again so what I gather from the OP is that something that ought to be isn't something that is so is something that ought to be something that isn't? If it isn't, what is it? something that both is and isn't?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:39:06 2012 No.4253012 >>4252994 ought/should you will it for moral reasons

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:40:13 2012 No.4253014 >>4253010 science tells you this man is alive morality tells you this man should continue to live etc, its not so difficult

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:42:21 2012 No.4253019 >>4253010 >2012 >Never heard of fact-value distinction This is babby's first philosophy shit, every /sci/tard knows it

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:43:37 2012 No.4253022

Wrong. Maximizing autonomy (which is the root of any utilitarian value system) allows all autonomous agents to determine what 'ought' to be on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, using science to maximize autonomy by increasing our mastery of the universe to the point that bad luck and random chance cease to hold us back will give rise to an optimal moral landscape.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:44:37 2012 No.4253023

>>4253014

right and then we form a sci or morality. Basically, killing some one will them to be less happy during the process but, even more, will cause suffering to those that care about him. When we know why and by how much these things happen we can have precise science. The fact that we know that this is occurring allows us to know that exploring this realm is not useless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:45:45 2012 No.4253029 File: 13 KB, 185x232, 185px-Model_babs_color..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4253019 >2012 >babby?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:45:45 2012 No.4253030 >>4253029 You must be new here.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:49:09 2012 No.4253036

>>4253012

Thanks for the answer but I'm not seeing the connection between willing something for moral reasons and "ought"

can't you can will something for moral reasons and still have the thing that you willed be something that is/isn't?

if that's true then willing something for moral reasons is something that can eight ought to be, is, or isn't..

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:49:09 2012 No.4253038 File: 198 KB, 1028x1513, 1325216699345..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4253030

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:50:18 2012 No.4253040 >>4253014 idk what you're talking about but I just asked for a definition of ought that distinguishes it from something that is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:51:25 2012 No.4253044 >>4253023 > The fact that we know that this is occurring allows us to know that exploring this realm is not useless. Yeah, that's basically Harris and the science of morality advocating philosophers' point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 04:55:57 2012 No.4253055 >>4253040 "Ought", what I wish the case to be. "Is", what is the case.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:00:29 2012 No.4253065

>>4253055

but can't someone wish something to be the case and have that thing actually be the case?

likewise, can't something actually be the case and have it also be something that someone that someone wishes was the case?

if this is true then "ought" seems like a meaningless distinction imo

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:04:02 2012 No.4253072

doesn't is inform what ought to be?

trial and error.

ie. if we know how the world works, how it is, then we know how we should interact with it.

ethics are simply part of the way it is; it's just less self-conscious (deliberate) and more reflexive

a deeper source than modern science

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:07:26 2012 No.4253079 >>4252936 >>4252936 it's not net negative, even if it may be temporarily net negative it is part of the process and overall well worth it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:07:26 2012 No.4253080 >>4253072 all of that sounds nice and may actually be correct but I am still not seeing the distinction between something that is and something that ought to be

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:13:06 2012 No.4253089

>>4253080
>>4253080

think of it this way; we ought not steal, kill, rape;

this ought is the way it is for most people; however, for some criminals, that ought is not the way it is

however, the ought exists sort of transcendentally regardless of our particular behavioral alignment

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:20:53 2012 No.4253099

>>4253065
>>4253080
Just get it already.

>can't someone wish something to be the case and have that thing actually be the case?

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the is/ought distinction, because not everything you wish to be the case is the case.

You may very well wish you sprout wings and fly, but that is not the case. The distinction stands.

>meaningless distinction

Only when you're dealing with necessity, ie analytic propositions.
"All bachelors ought to be unmarried" is not meaningful, because bachelors are by definition unmarried.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:20:53 2012 No.4253100

I'll do my best to think of it the way you propose and you tell me if I'm wrong or not

so when something is but is also either right or wrong (normal or criminal as you put it), then that something is something that ought to be/ought not to be

if that's right and I am actually following you allow me a followup question, when is something not something that is but is something that ought to be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:24:17 2012 No.4253106 >science tells you what "is" "is" : unconditional >ethics tells you what "ought" to be "ought" : conditional Lrn2philosophy

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:25:25 2012 No.4253109

>>4253099

I promise to get it already when you explain, not the things that things that are and ought to be may have in common (such as wishing something to be the case -which can belong to both a thing that is and a thing that ought to be), but the thing that distinguishes a thing that is and a thing that ought to be (ie the thing that can only belong to things that ought to be)

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:25:34 2012 No.4253110

>>4253100
>>4253100

>when is something not something that is but is something that ought to be?

consider the transcendantal precept again; it is the norm that results in social harmony, balance.

sometimes we get out of balance; it's just a way of nature; we aspire not to be in debt, and we aspire not to be at war, but sometimes it is unavoidable because of systemic imbalances, intertia, etc.

in which case we can reflect on the way we are used to things "peace, responsibility/prosperity, etc." and say, we're out of balance but we know what the right thing is still

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:27:41 2012 No.4253113 >>4253106 >conditional what's conditional? something that wouldn't be unless something else also existed? if this is true then doesn't everything that is fall under the distinction of "conditional?"

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:29:58 2012 No.4253117

>>4253110

while you may or may not be on to something, I think we are getting too far afield and am loosing sight of the distinction between something that is and something that ought to be (ie the thing that can only belong to something that ought to be and never to the the thing that is)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:29:58 2012 No.4253118 Its called "not being an inconsiderate selfish asshole" OP. If you need ethics to be a science to know what it is then you aren't a fucking human.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:31:05 2012 No.4253120

Ethical calculus is the measurement by which we weigh the value of human life versus the quality of human life. If the scales tip to the point that people are supporting those incapable of contributing to society in such means that others have to lower their standards of living, then it is no longer etichal to sustain the life of non-contributors.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:32:14 2012 No.4253123

>>4253113
>>4253113

the system is always in motion; which is why ethics remain always alive;

if the system calcified ought would be meaningless

>>4253117
>>4253117

if you're asking is there such a thing that should be but never is, then no, i don't think that's possible; it belongs in the realm of paradox or illusory ideal "have your cake and eat it too" etc.

ethics require a foundation in reality

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:34:29 2012 No.4253128 >>4253123 so there actually is no distinction between what is and what ought to be and the OPs argument falls apart?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:34:29 2012 No.4253130

>>4253117
>>4253117

maybe there is some secondary value in such illusions, like fairy tales

on the other hand i suspect there is some downside too, to the promotion of ideals that are unrealistic/impossible to attain; just setting people up for failure/disappointment

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:34:29 2012 No.4253131

>>4253109
>the thing that distinguishes a thing that is and a thing that ought to be (ie the thing that can only belong to things that ought to be)

One is factual (is), based on what you observed. It has happened or is happening.

The other (ought) is not, based on what you think should be the case. It has not yet happened, and I think it ought to happen that way.

Contrast:
The man is dead. His body is cold, I checked his pulses and he has none, so I know he is dead.

The man ought to be dead. He did some sick shit, I want to kill him.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:36:45 2012 No.4253133

>>4253128
>>4253128

i think you can look at it like that; on a long enough timeline ought goes out the window; it just is

on a smaller timeline, we do go thru changes; we do get out of balance and our ethical foundations allow us to find our way back

it's not even necessarily a deliberate process; ie. the process of finding and losing balance is actually a balanced process itself

self-regulating equilibrium

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:37:53 2012 No.4253135

>>4253131

>the other (ought) is not, based on what you think should be the case. It has not yet happened, and I think it ought to happen that way.

so something that ought to be is like a prediction?

isn't that what science does? (makes predictions and then checks to see if their predictions are right, if not then form new predictions)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:39:10 2012 No.4253139 >>4253135 >>4253135 it's not a prediction; a prediction implies disinterest ought is more like; we're 15 trillion dollars in debt; we ought not be burdening ourselves and our children like this; qed we ought change our behavior

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:44:41 2012 No.4253151 >>4253139 >It has not yet happened >ought is more like; we're 15 trillion dollars in debt being 15 trillion dollars in debt isn't something that has not yet happened your example doesn't fit your definition

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:49:22 2012 No.4253157 >>4253151 >>4253151 not the same person; i'm >>4253139 not >>4253131 as for the 15 trillion; it's we ought be more balanced and we're currently not

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:51:29 2012 No.4253161 >>4253157 >>4253157 oh ok, my bad. so if the distinction between what is and what ought to be isn't that one is what is and the other is a prediction of what is going to be, then what is the distinction that I am still not understanding?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:54:45 2012 No.4253163 >>4253131 I also want to know from the poster of this post if my understanding of what ought to be as a prediction of what will be is correct or not if possible

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 05:58:18 2012 No.4253167 >>4252925 So hes implicitly asserting that if you dissent with him, you are a psychopath? Nice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:02:49 2012 No.4253172 >>4253131 >The man is dead. He has no pulse, therefore he is dead >The man ought to be dead. He did some sick shit, therefore he ought to be dead I tried contrasting these and have found that both of these examples are based on observation

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:04:05 2012 No.4253176 >>4253161 >>4253161 the distinction is the connection between the two ethics gets us from point a to point b; it's the realisation for the need and the motivation to change

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:05:13 2012 No.4253178 >>4253176 >>4253176 or stay the same, hence "conservativism" or "conservationalism"; ie. what we've got is good and we don't want to lose it or fuck it up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:06:13 2012 No.4253179 >>4253178 or wahtever the fuck that word is conservationism

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:08:29 2012 No.4253184 >>4253176 out of curiosity, would you say that a distinction is something that separates two things?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:16:34 2012 No.4253200

>>4253184
>>4253184

the distinction separates them, or is a reflection of their separation; but it is also, implicitly, the motivation to reconcile the two as well.

like, when you're hungry; your stomach is empty; that is distinct from a fully tummy, and the recognition/hunger pains is the awareness of the difference, and the means to reconcile it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:19:49 2012 No.4253205 >>4253200 and a connection is something that brings two things together?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:22:13 2012 No.4253212

>>4253205
>>4253205

sure; on the other hand it's not all about making connections, and reconciling a with b.

as in being conservative, whether with the environment or with social traditions/ethics; the idea is to keep out disruptive influences by being conscious of the harmonic norm; ie. a law is not meant to rehabilitate criminals; it's meant to define and preclude crime to begin with

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:24:21 2012 No.4253213 >>4253212 so therefore the thing that separates two things (a distinction) brings two things together (connects them)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:24:30 2012 No.4253214 >>4253205 >>4253212 light distinguishes civilisation from the outside/wild but if we're outside already, light will help us find our way home

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:27:45 2012 No.4253219

>>4253213
>>4253213

not all distinctions are meant to reconcile or connect

desire is the distinction between the way it is and the way i want or need it to be

fear is the distinction between the way it is and the way i do not want it to be

positive and negative pressures; both necessary

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:36:50 2012 No.4253235 >>4253219 if a distinction (at times) reconciles or connects two things then isn't it not in fact a distinction (ie something that separates two things)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:38:58 2012 No.4253238 >>4253235 >>4253235 again, a distinction is the admission from the beginning that the two are separate; there is no distinction between something and itself that said, some distinctions motivate to reconcile; some motivate to avoid

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:40:21 2012 No.4253242 >>4253238 I thought we were talking about two things and not something and itself (ie one thing): >>4253184 >>4253200

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:41:21 2012 No.4253243 >>4253242 >>4253242 that's right; my point is for something to be a distinction there is an implication from the beginning that there is some difference, or separation

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:45:46 2012 No.4253245 Distinction Dis- "apart" (see dis-) + -stinguere "to prick" This is the real meaninq of "Distinction". Now take your Phailosophy to /b/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:46:02 2012 No.4253246 >>4253243 so let me reiterate: is a distinction something that separates two things (ie the distinction between a man who is alive and a man who is dead is that one of them is still alive)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:46:02 2012 No.4253248 Morality is worthless subjective bullshit ultimately derived from emotions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:49:17 2012 No.4253252 >>4253246 yes, but there is no absolute separation, not even in death

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:51:33 2012 No.4253255 >>4253252 so if there are no absolute separations between anything, there are no absolute distinctions between anything and everything is absolutely the same (ie with no separations between anything)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:52:41 2012 No.4253258 >>4253246 >>4253252 that's what universe means :D distinctions are how we know ourselves, and reflect on being alive without distinctions it would be a foregone conclusion (moot) darkness clarifies light; light clarifies darkness

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:53:50 2012 No.4253259 >>4253255 that's what universe means (one)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:54:57 2012 No.4253260 >>4253258 >>4253255 the tao would say "is and isn't produce one another" yin and yang are dualities within a unified continuum

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 06:54:57 2012 No.4253261 >>4253258 is there a distinction between what is correct and incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:00:37 2012 No.4253269 >>4253261 >>4253261 of course; that's why we have the two terms

>>	/thread Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:01:45 2012 No.4253271 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248 >>4253248

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:04:10 2012 No.4253276 >>4253269 so there are absolute distinctions such as the distinction between what is correct and what is incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:10:50 2012 No.4253286 >>4253276 >>4253276 that's one way of looking at it. also depends on context; we are both cause and effect

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:13:13 2012 No.4253291 >>4253286 was that a yes or a no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:20:01 2012 No.4253306 >>4253291 >>4253291 yes, there are distinctions between what is correct and what is not correct. not all distinctions fall under this category, but they do exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:24:25 2012 No.4253314 >>4253306 so now that we've established that distinctions exist, are they things that separate two things?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:26:41 2012 No.4253320

>>4253314
>>4253314

sure, but not absolutely; time is contiguous, and people change; redemption, etc. it's all part of the process

day follows night; night follows day

are day and night distinct? well sure they are

but they are also connected with one another; and in a greater sense, a day is simply 24 hours (subsuming both daylight and nighttime)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:29:17 2012 No.4253324 >>4253320 when I speak of distinctions lets first consider absolute distinctions but instead of writing absolute distinctions every time, let's just say distinctions to save on the typing so distinctions, do they separate two things?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:32:22 2012 No.4253332

>>4253324
>>4253324

are the concepts of day and night unique? yes

our concepts, our distinctions, even if we are to call them absolute distinctions, nevertheless coexist in our understanding of them, and our understanding of other people and change in time and space.

of course distinctions do separate things; just like you are separate from your neighbor; tho you are connected by the neighborhood, by society, by the species, by the earth, by the universe...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:33:29 2012 No.4253334 >>4253324 i think where you're getting hung up is you're looking for linear consistency; the thing is not linear it is fundamentally circular

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:35:45 2012 No.4253342 >>4253332 never mind which examples of distinctions fall under absolute distinctions and which do not, but answer the question more generally do distinctions (absolute ones, which we agreed exist), separate two things?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:37:53 2012 No.4253347 >>4253342 >>4253342 we've already answered this several times the answer is yes, but not absolutely

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:39:10 2012 No.4253352 >>4253347 so no absolute distinctions exist? because I thought we agreed that they do >>4253261 >>4253269

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:47:13 2012 No.4253372

>>4253352
>>4253352

a day = to 24 hours does not disprove day as in daylight vs night (the absence of light)

that distinction does exist; you can call it absolute if you like; and something greater subordinates it all (day as in 24 hours)

a similar thing can be seen with god (and devil), good/evil. god is on one hand the entire thing; on the other, the good aspect of the thing

our absolute tendency is both to come together and split apart; and impulses are connected, unified in one being

let me put it this way, are you absolute?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:49:30 2012 No.4253374

>>4253352
>>4253372

are we not absolute in and of ourselves? we represent the universe; the universe extends in us; if the universe is absolute, then so are we;

the distinctions may be absolute distinctions, insofar as they are operative as such; that does not mean there is not something greater to which all distinctions belong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:51:46 2012 No.4253380 >>4253372 >that distinction does exist so distinctions exist? you seem to be contradicting yourself >let me put it this way, are you absolute? I don't know

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:55:09 2012 No.4253386

>>4253380

well, it only appears to be a contradiction; i've already been over that too;

you realise there is a concept for "day" that means 24 hours, right?

there is another concept for day that means the part of those 24 hours that are sunlit.

do these concepts contradict? or rather clarify?

do we climb a mountain to go down it? that's what we're going to end up doing. once one gets to the top there's only one way forward

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:58:25 2012 No.4253392 >>4253386 so distinctions do not actually exist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 07:59:34 2012 No.4253395 >>4253392 What exactly do you mean by distinction?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:00:41 2012 No.4253398 >>4253392 >>4253392 distinctions do exist; day and night are real; you and i both know what they mean we also both realise there is such a thing as one day, that includes both day and night

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:02:57 2012 No.4253403

>>4253395

I'm not sure myself but lets say its the difference between two things that separate them, such as the distinction between a man who is alive and man who is dead is that one is still alive or the distinction between something that is correct and incorrect is that one of the things is correct

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:02:57 2012 No.4253405 >>4253398 ok so what is the distinction between what is and what ought be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:04:14 2012 No.4253409 >>4253405 'What is' is just that. 'What ought to be' is a subset of 'what isn't'.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:08:37 2012 No.4253418

>>4253405

ought is both is and isn't;

we ought to follow the law and most of us do, in general

a criminal ought to have followed the law too, even tho he didn't

if i get dirty, i ought to take a shower;

it's both how things are, and in specific cases, the prescription for doing/changing something about the current state

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:08:46 2012 No.4253420 >>4253409 so what ought be is something that isn't, then it is impossible for something that ought be to be something that is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:10:53 2012 No.4253423 >>4253420 Not necessarily. It could potentially become 'what is' in the future, but currently it is a subset of 'what isn't'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:10:53 2012 No.4253424 >>4253418 so if ethics tell you what ought be then they tell you what is and what isn't, more than what science would tell you, which only tells you what is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:11:01 2012 No.4253426 Reported this whole thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:13:10 2012 No.4253430 >>4253424 >>4253424 that is a fairly accurate statement, altho science can inform ethics the way i see it is science is more of a tool (measurement, rationalisation, reductionism, etc.) ethics is more of an active, reflexive thing

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:14:17 2012 No.4253432

>>4253423

ok so if what ought be can be something that is, then what is the distinction between what is and what ought be (ie the thing that what is lacks and what ought be possesses, the thing that makes something ought be but not is ie the thing that will only make something ought be and never what is, etc etc)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:16:33 2012 No.4253441 >>4253432 I define 'what should be' and 'what ought to be' as different things, with the former being a subset of 'what is' and the latter being a subset of 'what isn't'. Saves me a lot of philosophical navel gazing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:17:42 2012 No.4253445 >>4253441 so whats the difference between what should be and what is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:18:49 2012 No.4253448 >>4253432 in that sense, the current state of unfulfillment hunger is something; it is ought eat however, again; ought can apply to the way things are; i was hungry, i ought have eaten and i did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:19:58 2012 No.4253451 >>4253445 'What should be' is a subset of 'what is' that depends entirely on user perspective. It cannot be objectively defined.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:20:05 2012 No.4253453 >>4253445 now we're getting around to the full side of it; there are some things that are that ought not be, correct? people kill innocents; they ought not to, correct?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:21:05 2012 No.4253455 >>4253448 so what ought be is just something that currently isnt but will be in the future?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:22:14 2012 No.4253459 >>4253453 I don't see how I can answer that question when I can't even see the difference between what is and what ought be

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:24:29 2012 No.4253464 Bitch titties, you people are incompetent. Just follow the progression of logic seen in >>4253409 >>4253423 >>4253441 >>4253451 And you can come to an agreeable conclusion in less than a minute.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:27:54 2012 No.4253471 >>4253451 isn't everything determined by user perspective though? I'm not saying no perspective can be right but I don't see how anyone can see things not through user perspective

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:29:09 2012 No.4253475 >>4253471 Objects have mass, chemical properties, physical properties, etc. But in a moral sense, nothing has inherent value. It is up to you to define the values of everything in your own worldview.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:29:09 2012 No.4253476

>>4253455
>>4253455

no, we've already been over this; ought applies both to is and isn't

>>4253459

in one sense, how can anything be anything except the way it is? in that sense, ought goes out the window.

however, it is similar to the free will/determinism debate. scientifically and rationally we can conclude that there are strings and physical laws that determine our behavior. however, because we are constrained from perceiving them and their entire effects and the future, we operate with a certain freedom.

the same with ought and is. we ought to is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:31:26 2012 No.4253478 >>4253475 so is everything determined through user perspective or not?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:35:49 2012 No.4253483

>in one sense, how can anything be anything except the way it is? in that sense, ought goes out the window.

that's my point, that the OP seems to make a distinction between what is and what ought be and I don't see any difference whatsoever

so I ask you, again and again, to explain this difference between what is and what ought be in a way that makes sense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:36:58 2012 No.4253488 >>4253478 >>4253478 we can intellectualise determinism on an individual level; but on a deeper level, on an emotional and instinctual level, ie. an operative level, we perceive freedom and thus exigency (thus ought)

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:36:58 2012 No.4253489

>>4253478
Basically, 'what is' is not determined by user perspective. What one believes to be 'what is' is determined by user perspective. If you observe an object of mass X, you can think that it is an object of whatever mass you please, but it is still ultimately an object of mass X.

For your own sake, stop being so bloody philosophical about it. Philosophy is no more than a waste of time invented by intellectuals without true ambition who wanted to make themselves look good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:37:58 2012 No.4253492 >>4253483 >>4253483 see >>4253488 >>4253488

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:39:14 2012 No.4253495 >>4253489 well, i'd hardly minimalise it like that philosophy is, at best, true to its name; the love of knowledge science and philosophy ought have that in common :)

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:40:21 2012 No.4253497

>>4253489

that's funny I thought philosophy was the desire for wisdom, the recognition that you might not have it, and the pursuit of discussion in order to determine if you have it or not

but back to the point, so what ought be is something like a prediction, determined by the user's perspective, as to what actually is is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:41:30 2012 No.4253501 >>4253492 no idea what he's talking about sorry

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:41:30 2012 No.4253502 >>4253497 i hope you realise you're conversing with at least 2 people here. making things confusing, because he and i are not saying the same thing; hell it was confusing enough with me alone

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:43:45 2012 No.4253505

>>4253495
Philosophy is pondering the true meaning of everything and arguing, mostly about things that are ultimately pointless in the end (see: Solipsism) Science is only concerned with 'what is', while engineering and technology are about the use of the principles of science to turn 'what ought to be' into 'what should be', which is a subset of 'what is'.

The closer to 'what is' your viewpoint is, the better your viewpoint is in my opinion, save for the illusions we construct in culture to keep ourselves from getting depressed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:43:45 2012 No.4253506 >>4253502 I do, but I can't force people to use trips

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:44:54 2012 No.4253511 >>4253497 'What ought to be' is an entirely moral thing. A prediction I define as 'what will be'.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:45:01 2012 No.4253512

>>4253501
>>4253501

it's simple and it's the answer to your quandry

we can intellectualise determinism; we can point to physics, etc. and say we are bound by laws; however, this does not extricate us from our fundamental ignorance of them, our uncertainty, and thus our freedom.

rationalisation is only on one level; most of our brain is not self-conscious; we operate on that level too

ie. in that sense, we understand *that* we are determined but how we are determined is simply a reflexive sense, more being than knowing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:45:01 2012 No.4253513 >>4253505 I agree but that still doesn't my question asking if I am correctly understanding what ought be as a prediction of what what actually is is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:46:09 2012 No.4253516 >>4253513 See >>4253511

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:50:33 2012 No.4253525

>>4253511

so you disagree with:

>>4253505

>while engineering and technology are about the use of the principles of science to turn 'what ought to be' into 'what should be'

it seems like there is no one difference between what is and what ought that even the people who believe that there is a difference can agree on

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:51:42 2012 No.4253528 >>4253525 unless engineers are also practicing moralsa

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:53:58 2012 No.4253532 >>4253525 >>4253525 people with similar ideas often disagree, or understand them differently <shrug> ought is operative; the concept exists for a reason, otherwise we wouldn't have it

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:55:13 2012 No.4253541

>>4253532

while I don't see the difference I am not saying that I know that it doesn't exist, just asking the people who claim that there is a difference between the two to provide it and then trying to figuring out if it the distinction is useful or not

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 08:58:29 2012 No.4253546

>>4253528
>>4253525
Alright, let me explain to you what I said in
>>4253505
We have
>what is
its subset
>what should be
and
>what isn't
and its subsets
>what ought to be
>what could be

Now those last 2 subsets overlap to some degree depending on user perspective, and we can work to change
>what ought to be
into
>what should be

The subset
>what could be
contains the sub-subset
>what will be
We could have the whole free-will vs determinism debate, but in short all predictions are one's views on the
>what will be
sub-subset.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:01:53 2012 No.4253552 >>4253541 i've already done so i think; i don't know what else there is at this point except going in the same circle

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:02:01 2012 No.4253554 >>4253552 And this is why I don't like philosophy. You always end up going in a circle.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:03:11 2012 No.4253556
File: 11 KB, 462x269, tumblr_lqrk84D8Dh1qhuewfo1_500[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you cant get an "is" statement without assuming an "ought"

water "is" 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen,...but you cant convince someone who doubts this without appealing to evidence, what if someone says they dont value evidence?
science is built on an ought, you "ought" to value evidence

logic "is" how we reason but you cant convince someone who doubts this, without telling them they "ought" to value logic

whats wrong with an argument that contradicts itself? it seems wrong, but is that a good enough reason? but maybe that's just how our limited human minds perceive it..no

what do you say to someone who doubts the value of evidence logic and reason?
you say valuing evidence logic and reason are all useful for the well-being of conscious beings (us in particular)
what do you say to someone who doubts the value of it being useful for the well-being of conscious beings?

nothing,...you are arguing with a solipsist who would argue that we have ethical duty towards rocks

science makes no apologies for saying we ought to value evidence logic and reason.
why should science apologise for saying we ought to value the well-being of conscious beings?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:04:11 2012 No.4253558

>>4253546

but what I am asking you is this:

doesn't one use user perspective in determining anything, whether the mass of an atom or whether or not you should steal something, and that no matter what one is determining one can be right (correctly user perspective) or wrong (incorrect user perspective) about what actually is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:05:17 2012 No.4253560 >>4253552 no after you provide it you move forward by testing it to see if the explanation fails or not

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:07:34 2012 No.4253564

>>4253558
>>4253558

i think in some cases yes;

in a game of chess we usually have a winner and a loser; by the rules that are applied equally, we decide individually how to proceed.

in the markets 2 sides to every transaction; most of the time one person gains, while the other person loses; these are within contexts, tho that does not make them any less true

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:07:34 2012 No.4253567

>>4253558
In dealing with things such as the mass of an atom, one can be ultimately correct. But there is no ultimate right and wrong when it comes to morality, it's all user perspective. (Not that I advocate eating babies or anything) Morality is ultimately a cultural construct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:08:42 2012 No.4253570 >>4253564 I take it you aren't the poster of >>4253546 ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:09:49 2012 No.4253574 >>4253567 >>4253567 i disagree; moral concepts are within biological groupings; morality and ethics is how human animals self organise; the logic of morals/ethics is natural as anything else, including the nature of the atom

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:10:57 2012 No.4253576 >>4253567 so one can be right or wrong about measurements and nothing else?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:11:06 2012 No.4253579 >>4253574 Some groups think it's mandatory to cut off a piece of your kid's dick when he's born. Some groups find this idea horrifying. Ultimately, it's one of those things where it's best if you don't think about it and just go with the flow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:11:57 2012 No.4253578 >>4253570 you are correct

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:12:13 2012 No.4253582 >>4253576 Yes, everything else can only be right or wrong as defined by your own personal values.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:15:29 2012 No.4253586 >>4253579 >>4253579 there are some things that are culturally informed; there are others that are consistent across cultures (universal); ie. don't murder, protect women/children. and yes, there are exceptions/deviations but the rule still holds

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:15:38 2012 No.4253587 >>4253582 >>4253582 it's just not true tho; our personal values are a reflection of...wait for it...social values

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:16:38 2012 No.4253588

>>4253582

so when someone is trying to accomplish a goal, there is no right or wrong/correct or incorrect way of achieving that goal?

they can do anything in order to achieve that goal and the result will be the same? or will some things be right and others wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:18:53 2012 No.4253590 >>4253588 >>4253588 of course there's a right and wrong; just as there is a right and wrong way of building a bridge; and doing something wrong physically has moral implications as well, because a faulty bridge can kill innocent people

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:20:10 2012 No.4253598 >>4253590 I take it you aren't the poster who claimed that measurement was the only thing you could be correct about: >>4253582 ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:24:33 2012 No.4253600 >>4253598 >>4253598 again, correct

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:25:41 2012 No.4253602 >>4253600 well as much as I appreciate your answer and agree with it, I was looking for that particular poster to answer the question as I am curious what his answer might be

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:30:14 2012 No.4253606 >>4253602 >>4253602 cool, well, it's been fun later

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:31:22 2012 No.4253608 >>4253606 have a good one

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 09:36:01 2012 No.4253615

>>4253582
>so one can be right or wrong about measurements and nothing else?
>Yes, everything else can only be right or wrong as defined by your own personal values.
water is 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen.... right or wrong? or is water a personal value?

if that is right what were you measuring?

you ought to value evidence, right wrong or personal
you ought to value logic, right wrong or personal(who says A is A)?
you ought to value reason, right wrong or personal(whats wrong with an argument that contradicts itself?)

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 15:15:51 2012 No.4254529

>>4253590
More importantly a faulty bridge is not as "good" as a sturdy one.
If it better serves its purpose as a bridge that should make it right. If it does not serve its purpose as a bridge it is wrong. I think this is a little more fundamental than morals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 09:04:26 2012 No.4257150 >>4254529 >>4254529 it's the same exact thing morals are social self-organisation cheating, stealing, murder - these things fuck up society - ie. it doesn't work as well as it would otherwise same thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 09:30:32 2012 No.4259548 Science without ethics does not deserve the name 'science'.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math