"Ought" Derivable from "Is"

Were you to adapt a somewhat more credible style of communication then you might have a more captive audience
What lets you down is not merely what you say but the way that you say it so you could consider that if you want to

That’s the problem. Words don’t convey spiritual knowledge, just like they don’t convey what green is to a blind person. The way I form sentences are the best that I can do. Spiritual people look at my messages and go “duh”, non spiritual people see problems with language or concept.

Now don’t get me wrong! I’m always working on language !! Probably always will!

For example, I used to call all human sex rape, people got furious at me, so I learned recently to call the form of rape I was talking about “subtle rape”.

I evolve linguistically for sure.

Unfortunately these are invalid syllogisms.

To understand why, take a look at the grammar being used - specifically the “voice” being used (i.e. active or passive voice).
In P1, “IS” being “conditioned by humans” uses the passive voice. The equivalent sentence using the active voice would be “Humans condition IS_ness”.
P2 uses the active voice and the equivalent sentence using the passive voice would be “OUGHT is conditioned by humans”.

If you were to match the voice for each premise, we’d either have both “IS” and “OUGHT” being conditioned by humans (passive), or humans conditioning both “IS” and “OUGHT”.
So if humans condition “IS” and they condition “OUGHT”, it does not follow that “OUGHT” is derived from “IS”, only that both are derived from humans and could in principle be completely unrelated to one another except in terms of their shared origin. The same goes for saying “IS” and “OUGHT” are conditioned by humans: they’re each derived by humans and could be otherwise unrelated.

The same goes for your second syllogism, which uses the same syntax but simply swaps out “IS” and “OUGHT” for “FACT” and “VALUE” respectively.
As such, neither are valid I’m afraid.

Apart from syntax, more partially cut off considerations need to be consider.

The fear of the fear of the ‘’ has been circumscribed by the shallow look back to a slippery slide unto fascism

Syntax is always definitive, and opinionated. It’s easy to cover the implications with the definitively ascertained , as if all meaning stems from one identifiable circumstance from another just like it.

But that is not how meaning is transmitted, only propaganda.

And this is where the crux of the dilemma lies, and it is similar to the total Nietzchean disqualification, and this sleight of hand purported non objective inference mixed with a faux referentiality, that put N away into the bedlam of undisputed finality.

Interpretation is constantly revised, but the problem with intuition is that it can descend to myth- good and/or bad.

Such transiting vision that can only occur sparsely, can be regressed toward a choice between good and bad, and only those to whom evil is merely an unintended occurance based on the thought processes of those to whom such understanding is undisclosed, clashes with those who are beyond good and evil.

After all , did nor the Christ say, “Forgive Them Father, for they do not know ?”

As stated, moral relativism is pseudo-morality, not morality-proper.
It is just like Science-proper versus pseudo-science.

Morality-proper with objective moral facts are the essence of morality while moral relativism are the forms of morality-proper.
Moral relativism are justified by anthropologists and social scientists who observed people from different cultures and traditions has different ‘moral’ values relative to their circumstances.
For example, the certain primitive tribes, Christians, Muslims, various group has different sets of moral values.
But the problem with moral relativists is they are too superficial and do not dig deeper to understand the underlying generic principles of human nature related to good and bad.

I am not against the forms of moral-relativism which is my views are the APPLIED aspects [Ethics] of universal moral principles of PURE morality.

I had stated, DNA wise, ALL humans has the inherent potential of a generic moral function. Unfortunately this moral function is not very active in the majority of humans at present. But fortunately this inherent potential is unfolding very slowly and the results of moral increment is evident since 100,000 years ago to the present.

Whilst the inherent moral function is not very active in the majority, there is a small percentile where the moral function neural algorithm is not connected properly at birth or later.
Note for example, DNA wise, the 5 senses are programmed to function according to their specific purpose, but then there is synaethesia where there wrong connections between the senses and their trigger. E.g. a person when tasting will see colors and other wrong combinations of the senses.

For psychopaths, the problem is their inherent moral function is damaged either during birth [nature] or during his nurturing period.

For others, as Boyd stated, they have a deficit-moral-cognitive-function in recognizing the existence of moral facts, i.e. the moral fact deniers.

As I had stated elsewhere, it is too late to do much improvement to the current generations in terms of improving their moral competence.

Humanity’s hope is to establish fool proof self-development programs to increase the moral competence of the average person for future generations [next 50, 75 > 100 years].

In addition, for outliers like psychopaths and other moral nihilists, humanity will have to find ways to prevent them at birth or to find ways to manage their psychopathy.

Very reasonable critique.

As raised by Fuse, there is something missing, perhaps a missing premise or terms.
viewtopic.php?p=2771554#p2771554

I added the following points to the premises.

P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition and derive OUGHT_ness from IS
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS

P1 is prevailing, thus ‘being conditioned’ is grammatically correct [??].
P2 is active, i.e. humans are deriving ought from IS.

The above is a general model.

As specifically for moral ought and moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs], they are derived, conditioned and justified from a Moral Framework and System via empirical and philosophical means, just like how scientific facts are derived and conditioned from the Scientific Framework and System with its scientific method, peer review, etc.

Welcome more comments where necessary.

The separation of is and ought is abstraction.
It’s like saying 2 clouds are separate.
It seems to make sense, but in reality,
the clouds are transient.
They intermix, and appear, and disappear.

A cloud is not an individual thing.
It is many small things.

Philosophical errors.

I hope you don’t mind me pointing out logical flaws - I understand it can come across as patronising and some people find it difficult. Not my intention.

Your coloured additions unfortunately introduce another one to premise 2:
If we separate P2 by its logical conjunction (the “and”) into the subject “Humans” with two different predicates “condition OUGHT_ness from IS” and “derive OUGHT_ness from IS”, we note the latter predicate is equivalent to the conclusion.
(Humans) “derive OUGHT_ness from IS” is semantically identical to “OUGHT is derived from IS”. This is known as “begging the question”, which just means “assuming the conclusion” - i.e. a kind of circular reasoning where the conclusion is already in the premises. This is an informal logical fallacy - because of course your conclusion will follow from the premises if you’ve already stated it in a premise from which your conclusion is derived.

Deriving “ought” from “is”, and “ought” derived from is", use the active and passive voice respectively to mean the same thing - as I brought up in my last post.
I don’t want you to misunderstand me - using either voice is entirely valid grammatically: “being conditioned” is indeed grammatically correct, and so is (humans) “deriving ought from is”. The only thing that’s different is the “point of view”, if you like.
“The dog followed the human” and “the human was followed by the dog” describe identical situations, only the former (active voice in this case) is the point of the view of the dog, and the latter (passive voice in this case) is the point of view of the human. The dog is doing an action in the former, and the human is passively involved in what the dog’s doing in the latter, but the two statements are logically interchangeable as the semantic value carried by either voicing is identical.
As a suggestion: try to make the voices you’re using consistent throughout your argument if that helps you more easily assess the validity of its progression, because I think grammar is tripping you up here.

For your P1, you have the element “IS” being part of the set “things that are conditioned by humans”. This is fairly tautologous, because the property of existence is a pre-condition for being acted on in any way (e.g. being conditioned (by humans)).
For your P2, you state that “humans condition oughtness” as a fact, which seems fine to me.
If your conclusion is to be that “ought is derived from is”, perhaps it’s first necessary to establish that “conditioning” amounts to the object of conditioning being “derived” from the subject doing the conditioning. This would allow P2 to state that “oughtness is derived from humans”, or “humans derive oughtness” (same thing, different voice).

In this case, for P2 to validly lead to C1, P1 would have to be something like “humans are derived from IS_ness”. This would allow the form:
P1: B <= A
P2: C <= B
C1: C <= A
where A denotes “IS_ness”, B denotes “humans”, and C denotes “OUGHT_ness”. I wrote the arrows backwards to mimic the passive voice that makes the argument easier to read:
“Humans” derived from “is”, ought derived from “humans”, therefore “ought” derived from “is”.

And I guess humans are indeed derived from “IS_ness”, given objective existence independent of the human perception of it - as most people believe it to be.
But as sound as this syllogism now is, all it really says is that “ought” is a thing that exists that comes to existence via the existence of humans. This seems fairly uncontroversial.

“You can’t get an is from an ought” is getting at something different. “Ought” is an element of the set “Is”, because oughtness “exists”. But there is nothing necessarily “ought” as a result of what “is”.
It’s possible to assert an ought “within” the scope of what “is”, about something that “is”, as something that “is”. This invokes the realm of modal logic:
P1: “Is” possibly derives humans (:white_medium_square:A → ◇B)
P2: Humans possibly derive oughts (◇B → ◇C)
C1: It is possible that “is” derives “ought”, but it is not necessary that “is” derives “ought”. (:white_medium_square:A → ◇C ∧ ¬:white_medium_square:C)

Basically, you can derive “ought” from “is”, but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it’s not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it’s logic.

Silhouette,

We’ve been through this before. Syllogisms don’t work. Period. They’re interesting. Intuition is greater than our current logic trees.

When I said months ago that nobody wants their consent violated, you came at me with “nobody wants, what nobody wants”. In this statement of yours you argued that it was too circular (didn’t refer to anything outside itself) to be meaningful.

Thing is: every being on this earth knows they don’t want their consent violated. Everyone intuitively knows what that means. What I’m doing here is attacking your syllogism methodology. And prismatics as well.

That both of you think syllogisms are intellectual is absurd. I even brought up the point of infinite counting numbers as an example. We know that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Etc… goes on forever, but since nobody can count an infinity it’s impossible to prove with a syllogism (try it!)

Logic is ultimately intuitive, inferential …

Syllogisms don’t work. They’re the curiosities of hobbyists.

This is not true.

If there IS an objective and there IS a limited set of possible options, then oughts will necessarily exist in that space.
There is nothing arbitrary about which set of options serve the objective and which do not.

The VALUES relativism that is logically justified by way of having multiple distinct goal seeking agents (such as humans), is not the same as moral relativism.
If you were alone on an island… there would be no such thing as morality, yet you would have values all the same.

There is a social terrain in which every individual has to maneuver, that they themselves and every other individual is a part of.
“Morality” has to do with that terrain in which the objective is to permit those distinct agents to co-exists and cooperate for mutual benefit.
That does not lend itself to being arbitrary… the circumstances only permit so many options and only so many of those options serve that objective.

The nihilist position approaches value as arbitrary in content, as not necessary to a humans existence. I beg to differ.

Existence, for a self-governing entity, is contingent upon being value-consistent. So whereas essence (character, value, ought) isn’t prior to coming into existence, it is required for continued existence.

(the Is extracts the Ought from itself in as far as it withstands time, entropy)

Not an issue with me as long as you have an argument to support your point.

I believe you missed out the critical fundamental and foundation to the OP., i.e.

I agree with your point.
It is only because I am too hasty.

P2 require more explanation regarding the term ‘condition’.
Here is an analogy:
Humans condition scientific knowledge/fact/truth from “IS” via the Scientific Framework.
Similarly,
humans condition facts from “IS” via specific framework and system of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, geometry, legal, economics to produce their respective specific conditional facts. In this case, I am more concern with moral facts produced from a moral framework and system.

I can revised P2 to;
Humans condition ought_ness from IS. [explained and justified as above]
How? I will have to explain and justify how it can be done just like Science is doing with scientific facts.

Noted will do where possible, but I believe there is no issue with my syllogism above within the explained circumstances.

I believe this is why the foundation stated above is relevant.

Note the “PAR” i.e. "Philosophical Anti-Realism. mentioned above.
Within PAR, objective existence is NOT independent of human conditions.
Humans co-interact with each other that enable the emergence of reality.
Neither humans nor reality precede the other.
Therefore PAR do not accept, humans are derived from “IS”.

Thus my P1,
P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
It could also be vice-versa since they co-interact.
note I qualified that to PAR.

Note my foundation, i.e. Philosophical Anti-Realism [PAR] which oppose Philosophical Realism.

Thus based on PAR, I believe my syllogism is valid [“derived” deleted in P2];

P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition* OUGHT_ness from IS
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is abstractable from IS

  • as explained above, i.e. via conditioning framework and system.

Critique definitely welcome.

Removed

Syllogisms are not the ALL of arguments nor reality.
However they provide a very structured framework and systematic approach for criticism and improvement of one’s thoughts and ideas.

My syllogism enable an easy means for critique and improvements to one’s idea.
As highlighted by Silhouette i have revised my syllogisms and there is a basis for me to provide additional explanation and premises.

There are other means beside syllogism, e.g. narratives, explanations, induction, reflective equilibrium, coherentism and others.
You just cannot throw in anything intuitive without conforming to one of the above, otherwise anything goes to the extreme of allowing the most terrible evil intent to creep in.

In general, agree to the bolded.

A simple enough formula which, I think, answers your full query.

When I think of “ought”, an accordance to a moral code comes to mind.

You’re right that the term is also commonly used synonymously with individual values, even irrespective of moral codes:
If you want to survive, you ought to eat and drink.
If you want to get from A to B, you ought to move.

But even this usage is circular: if you value Y, you to ought to Z. Why ought you to value Y? Because if you value Y, it’s because you value X such that if you value X then you ought to Y. And so on potentially infinitely regressively.
An ought must be an assumed premise somewhere down the line in order for the conclusion to be an ought: circular reasoning.

You might say you value X because such a value “just is”. In this case, the “ought” is the “is”, immediately. I can’t help valuing eating, because sufficient hunger compels me to value seeking food whether I want it to or not. It is upon me, immediately: the “ought” premise is built in, but then there is the frontal cortex that can mediate these impulses. That enables me to just “do nothing”, to “not value the compulsion”. It is perfectly possible to do this and potentially even “ought” myself out of “is” altogether. It would be anthropomorphising to attribute value to entropy, but it appears that existence simply will increase “your” entropy whether you “ought” to elongate the time it takes from birth to death - or not. It didn’t have to, but it just does whether it ought to or not, and you didn’t have to value counter to it.

Basically, remove the “ought” from premises such as “human survival” or “human preference”, and you have nothing about “is” to make into an “ought”. Objectives would not exist in the first place, because there is no value to precede it.

I disagree. The regression misses the object of the original intention , not because it was consciously abandoned, but because it was forgotten . as based on the progressive nature of development.

The nurturing of the young at some point looses it’s automatic reflex character, and becomes some matter of choice, when, for instance, and at that point the 'is’and the ‘ought’ become traditionally transparent, seeking some value, in a moral alignment.

Guilt is the subconscious misalignment between initial unrealized motives, and later projected objective beliefs, and the adult parent learns by a different set of rules, why he should not abandon it’s young
Even animals learn that such may be necessary, and the will hold their ground in the defence of their young.

When talk about the role of …then, it is inaccurate to premise the idea if absolute unconscious motivation with zero choice.

Guilt is the unknown result of misaligned relationship in this regard, and religion happened when social consciousness had to institute such a tool that would enable existence to sustain the progressive need for constant re-affirmation for cultural development.

The question could have not been posed as such initially, and early religions reflected a basic disparity between intended relationships which led to foundemental objectives.

That most religions started from intuitive aspects of behavior is factual, and it needed higher developing objects of transition to enable it to sustain refined moral objectives.

That these objectives are relative and not iron clad ideal artifice, do not take away their significance, but reduce the misaligned importance that a basic elemental question of whether existence should go on.

But hard pressed, that premise dilutes retroactively unto the foundation of the most basic organic level , and looses it’s signifiers.

At the same time, to say, that such dilution of objective criteria simply ‘is’ may also be a misnomer, because at some point it transposed into choices: here, between abandoning it sustaining the reason why .

Even faced with the horrendous post modern challenges we face today, the fallacy resolves itself axiomatically, which is the reverse of the tautology pointed to.

True, absent values from which to form objectives there is no ought.
But fortunately the one self-evident truth, the well from which we draw everything else admits to values.

There exists qualitative experience… it’s the one thing we can be certain there IS.