Is, is what reality is, regardless of what we think it ought be. Ought is an idea of what it could be, that is better than what it is. So people say, this is what is should be, and thus this is what it really is, somehow projecting their ideals and making them into what reality actually is. But all of this doesn’t change that what people think reality ought be is not really what it is, unless they think reality ought to be exactly the way it is and no other way. It seems the only way you can argue that an ought is an is, is to argue that reality should be exactly the way it is.
Ought is a statement about an is, with respect to some other is statements. There is nothing else that an ought can be, than this.
“Morality” is not somehow essentially separate from or different than other kinds of statements, as if it exists in some kind of vacuum or alternate reality.
WHAT and HOW we value reduces to WHAT and HOW we are, as particular kinds of beings with particular needs and capacities/possibilities.
MM, you could save yourself a lot of time and energy if you’d just go and say that you didn’t entirely understand Hume’s position, and that your OP was a result of that. What’s more important… believing you’re allways right about everything, or realising the mistakes you make and actually learning something?
Why place the burden on us? Here’s an exercise for the industrious:
Try to state Hume’s position regarding induction (or cause and effect, etc.) in, say, a sentence or two. 2. Quote the text from which you derive that sentence or two.
I suspect that your belief about how quite well you understand him will be shattered.
Ought is a should. In the absence of a goal, as was stated earlier in the thread, ought is meaningless. But to truly make an ought into an is, you need to prove that the goal is a should. Part of the problem with this is that you need to first prove that existence is a should. “the universe SHOULD exist”
Hm, no. I am not beholden to prove my understanding beyond what I have already done. This is not a course in which I must produce homework assignments. But nice try.
I would imagine there is no substance to your accusation, and that it derives from some manner of instinct to attack me, for whatever reason I can only imagine. Your attempt has been noted.
No, you have quite thoroughly misunderstood. “Ought is a should” is a mere truism, and I have already addressed what an ought is: it is a statement arising as a consequence of values, what is called often in philosophy a normative statement. I have also gone deeper into the examination of such statements, claiming that they are the product of certain “is” being applied to other “is”. The proper question you might ask would aim at disclosing the nature of these is and the manner of their relation. How exactly does this produce what we call “values”?
Even if ought is only a statement as is what is, also a statement, these statements are then not necessarily better or worse than any other statement. Therefore it isn't necessary to go from is to ought, because they carry equal weight.
They are merely contingent. That undermines the value of ought.
It may be the ought is a different type of statement, requiring the evaluation of disqualification of sets of similar statements, where similarity is broken at some point and disqualified. Primarily at the limit of this different reasoning, a binary judgement will eventually be no further reducible than two contradictory statements.
One such a limit may be: to live, or not. The non existence of Being at this point will signal a Being behind existence, or an ought behind is.
Goodness. I was simply trying to encourage you to defend your interpretation of Hume with greater care.
As to that from which my accusation is derived, as you put it, it’s not some manner of instinct to attack you for reasons only your imagination can assist you: as you said so yourself, that your calling Hume an idiot was intended to be provocative: I was provoked.
In addition, much is said by Hume concerning these issues by what he does not say. One of course cannot “point you to” where he does not say a certain thing, one must be somewhat familiar with an overall text and the general ideas which the author presents in it, to begin to derive this sort of secondary understanding and context.
I suppose what I mean to say is, if you believe anything I have said here is incorrect, it would make sense for you to clearly demonstrate why you believe that.
There is a reason for non sequitors in an argument on Hume. There is a point where familiarity breaks down. The unfimilar is excluded, and assumed not to break the sequence. But, it does unwittingly, and begins to miss talking points which then become assumptions of legitimate sequencing. The secondary considerations then take over, covering primary faults.
I’ll be honest, I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. You will need to be a bit less esoteric if you want to make your point understood.
Remember this is a topic about specific ideas put forth by Hume and the consequences of those ideas. If you don’t have anything to contribute specifically either to what Hume said or to those ideas themselves, regardless of what Hume said or did not say, please refrain from posting in here.
You asked me to “point you to where he does this”. I have done so. Any further development of understanding on your part would seem to be your own responsibility.
I have clearly stated my position here, many times, and refined it so as to be as precise as possible. I have also now given you a basis for where you might find those ideas of Hume’s which I am examining, as you asked me to do. Really, what else is there, than for you to just make some actual arguments here? Have you even bothered to contribute a single thing other than “I don’t think you know what you’re talking about”…? If so, I must have missed it.
Then I will assume there was indeed no substance behind your claims that I have misunderstood Hume. You cannot offer any ideas of Hume’s nor your own interpretations or arguments about what Hume said or meant. One wonders what you were even doing here in the first place.