Aren’t you asking science to be able to objectively determine it’s own aim?
Aim depends on desire. Science as a methodology has no inherent desire does it?
Science maybe can tell us the best way to survive is to destroy or neutralize anything that is a threat. It doesn’t have any morality.
You choose what you want to accomplish. Science can determine the best way to get their maybe. You have to decide whether the method is morally acceptable to you.
How is science going to determine you ought to go fill up a bucket with water without some ought/aim/purpose you add in somewhere along the line base on some purpose you desire?
When you ask ‘what the aim ought to be’ aren’t you introducing yet another aim via the definition of an ought as ‘what to do in order for the aim to be a result’?
No
Really?
1) what the aimought to be
2) what the aimwhat to do in order for the aimto be a result to be
Obviously the second phrase needs to be cleaned up but let me make sure I understand you. The green aim and the purple aim are the same aim? I don’t get it. Can you clean up the second phrase without using “ought” or “should”? If the aims are the same it doesn’t seem to convey the same meaning as the first phrase.
Aren’t you asking science to be able to objectively determine it’s own aim?
Aim depends on desire. Science as a methodology has no inherent desire does it?
Science maybe can tell us the best way to survive is to destroy or neutralize anything that is a threat. It doesn’t have any morality.
You choose what you want to accomplish. Science can determine the best way to get their maybe. You have to decide whether the method is morally acceptable to you.
How is science going to determine you ought to go fill up a bucket with water without some ought/aim/purpose you add in somewhere along the line base on some purpose you desire?
P’raps science can’t do this.
I’m just wondering if it can and how it might do it.
And I’m wondering what Sam Harris is claiming in his book, as it seems to me that if he isn’t dealing with the is ought problem he isn’t saying much because of course science can help with an aim once we establish the aim.
And I’m wondering what Sam Harris is claiming in his book, as it seems to me that if he isn’t dealing with the is ought problem he isn’t saying much because of course science can help with an aim once we establish the aim.
I agree. I gather, though I have not read the book yet, that Mr. Harris measures all aims against their effect on human flourishing, whatever that is. I haven’t seen a defense for this position nor a human flourishing metric suitable as the evidence necessary for doing science.
Correction: substitute “well-being of conscious creatures” for “human flourishing”.
2) what the aimwhat to do in order for the aimto be a result to be
Obviously the second phrase needs to be cleaned up but let me make sure I understand you. The green aim and the purple aim are the same aim?
Yes.
I don’t get it. Can you clean up the second phrase without using “ought” or “should”? If the aims are the same it doesn’t seem to convey the same meaning as the first phrase.
What the aim should be is another matter, but what we should do given any particular aim is easy, it’s just what we need to do to achieve the aim.
whether I should eat 47 bacon sandwiches tonight is questionable to say the least. But the things I should do in order to achieve the aim are not.
And I’m wondering what Sam Harris is claiming in his book, as it seems to me that if he isn’t dealing with the is ought problem he isn’t saying much because of course science can help with an aim once we establish the aim.
I agree. I gather, though I have not read the book yet, that Mr. Harris measures all aims against their effect on human flourishing, whatever that is. I haven’t seen a defense for this position nor a human flourishing metric suitable as the evidence necessary for doing science.
Correction: substitute “well-being of conscious creatures” for “human flourishing”.
Exactly. he assumes an aim and then says science can help.
Well of course! That’s a no brainer doh.
Good luck to him, more money in the bank.
Mind you I at least am impressed with what he says on free will in the book and that’s enough to make it of value, as far as I’m concerned.
“What the aim should be is another matter, but what we should do given any particular aim is easy, it’s just what we need to do to achieve the aim.”
“What the aim ought to be is another matter, but what we ought to do given any particular aim is easy, it’s just what we need to do to achieve the aim.”
I think these two sentences convey the same idea. Do you agree? Also, does “should” have the same meaning both times it is used in the first sentence?
What the aim ought to be is the stuff of normative ethics. If that is another matter then with the matter at hand we (and perhaps Sam Harris) aren’t saying much about normative ethics.
PS. I’d still like to see you take a stab at cleaning up that second phrase. I think you’ll discover the incoherence I was referring to earlier.
“What the aim should be is another matter, but what we should do given any particular aim is easy, it’s just what we need to do to achieve the aim.”
“What the aim ought to be is another matter, but what we ought to do given any particular aim is easy, it’s just what we need to do to achieve the aim.”
I think these two sentences convey the same idea. Do you agree?
Yes.
Also, does “should” have the same meaning both times it is used in the first sentence?
Also, does “should” have the same meaning both times it is used in the first sentence?
No.
Can you explain the difference? Is one of the “should"s a purely a conditional statement (should do Y = if one wants X, given the way the world works, doing Y will satisfy that want)? Which one? How would you characterize the other “should”?
Also, does “should” have the same meaning both times it is used in the first sentence?
No.
Can you explain the difference? Is one of the “should"s a purely a conditional statement (should do Y = if one wants X, given the way the world works, doing Y will satisfy that want)? Which one? How would you characterize the other “should”?
One should is simply in order to achieve an aim, i.e if you don’t do it the aim won’t happen.
The other should is different, it’s the aim we arrive at having correctly traveled from is to ought, assuming that is possible.
Also, does “should” have the same meaning both times it is used in the first sentence?
No.
Can you explain the difference? Is one of the “should"s a purely a conditional statement (should do Y = if one wants X, given the way the world works, doing Y will satisfy that want)? Which one? How would you characterize the other “should”?
One should is simply in order to achieve an aim, i.e if you don’t do it the aim won’t happen.
The other should is different, it’s the aim we arrive at having correctly traveled from is to ought, assuming that is possible.
stephen
Great. I think I’m with you there. However I’m confused as to which is which? Is the “should” in ‘what the aim should be’ the ‘correctly travel from is to ought’ “should”? Because that’s not what I thought you meant earlier leading to the phrase that needs cleaned up.
Great. I think I’m with you there. However I’m confused as to which is which? Is the “should” in ‘what the aim should be’ the ‘correctly travel from is to ought’ “should”?
Yep.
but I don’t wanna give the impression I know what I’m talking about, just making an attempt at getting somewhere.
Goodness knows if it can be done.
The ingredients are function.
Why anything matters at all i.e we are capable of degrees of suffering and happiness.
I’m just wondering if it can and how it might do it.
And I’m wondering what Sam Harris is claiming in his book, as it seems to me that if he isn’t dealing with the is ought problem he isn’t saying much because of course science can help with an aim once we establish the aim.
Stephen
I’m wondering the same. I suspect it’s time to get a hold of a copy of his book.
