Search

 4 of 4 « First Prev 2 3 4
Science and a twist on the is ought gap
 Posted: 20 March 2011 11:05 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6325
Joined  2006-12-20
traveler - 20 March 2011 08:42 AM

Is the aim here to present a question that is understandable? Seems it ought to be.

The question is how to get from is to ought.

The idea is to start with function as the is part and some how make the move to the aim we ought to aim for.

Aiming has also evolved so has a function.

I think we need to understand the move from aimless functional moral behaviour, to aim based moral behaviour, which would be to get from is to ought.

Aim based behaviour is to do with increasing happiness and reducing harm, while purely functional behaviour is to do with survival.

Can we link aim to survival via the function of happiness and suffering?

Can we evolve from survival based function to aiming for happiness?

Is there some other way to look at this?

Or is it simply impossible to get from is to ought?

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 20 March 2011 12:36 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

My computer science degree included a math major so I know two definitions of function. And my graduate work in chemistry and biology provided two more definitions of function. Yet the current “start with function as the is part” eludes me.

So, the idea is “to start with function as the is part…” That’s not a clear statement. If function is the “is” part, then why not say can we get from a function to an “aim.”
And if the “aim” part is choosing a proper goal (because you can’t aim without a target), then why not say “to choose a goal.”
So the question seems to become, “Can we, from an existing function, choose a goal (a “proper” target).

Then the answer becomes “possibly.” If the function itself in immutable, then the only way we can adjust the “aim” is through its coefficients (or function variables). If the variables of the function are fixed, then we can only hope that the function is mutable. If neither the function nor its coefficients are mutable, then no we cannot get to an ought unless, of all the possible oughts, our function and its coefficients/variables are the precise ones we want. Throwing subjective terms like “happiness and suffering” only muddles the question further.

Signature

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

 Profile

 Posted: 21 March 2011 01:23 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6325
Joined  2006-12-20
traveler - 20 March 2011 12:36 PM

My computer science degree included a math major so I know two definitions of function. And my graduate work in chemistry and biology provided two more definitions of…..................................................................

I’m impressed

Stephen

[ Edited: 21 March 2011 01:25 PM by StephenLawrence ]
 Profile

 Posted: 21 March 2011 02:16 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
StephenLawrence - 21 March 2011 01:23 PM
traveler - 20 March 2011 12:36 PM

My computer science degree included a math major so I know two definitions of function. And my graduate work in chemistry and biology provided two more definitions of…..................................................................

I’m impressed

Stephen

Great, so any other thoughts?

Signature

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

 Profile

 4 of 4 « First Prev 2 3 4