6 of 6
6
The is/ought “problem”
Posted: 20 January 2015 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5254
Joined  2007-08-31

Sorry, MikeYohe, but for me you are just wildly speculating. I will not go into an argument with you about this.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2015 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2009-10-21
GdB - 20 January 2015 10:25 AM

Sorry, MikeYohe, but for me you are just wildly speculating. I will not go into an argument with you about this.

Well, that is Mike’s style, but it’s pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes “ethical discourse” as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can’t be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2015 11:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5254
Joined  2007-08-31
Lausten - 20 January 2015 06:04 PM

Well, that is Mike’s style, but it’s pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes “ethical discourse” as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can’t be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.

You are missing a definition of ‘ethical discourse’??? Woow.

Well, ok, here it is, in 2 steps:

1. A rational discourse is a discourse in which people try to find a common standpoint, based on arguments. A discourse is principally endless: as new people may enter the discourse, circumstances change, new insights are won, etc, already established consensus might be discussed again.
2. An ethical discourse is a rational discourse about morality, i.e. people try to find common standards about what is morally justified to do under which circumstances.

My standpoint which you try to ridiculise sarcastically, is that science can contribute facts to an ethical discourse, but not values. I never said we don’t need science. Just try to answer the questions I asked here about abortion or sacrificing innocent deaths.

Maybe I should add another kind of discourse:

3. A scientific discourse is a rational discourse about factual truth. As this is a discourse about correct descriptions of objective reality, the strongest arguments given are based on observation and experiment.

Mixing up ethical discourse and scientific discourse leads to all kinds of confusions, or in the worst cases, to misuse of power (as in in good old religions), or alienation of people of their Lebenswelt.

The ‘is/ought problem’ is not a problem: it is one of the ground stones of secularisation and democracy.

As an entry you can read this Wikipedia article on discourse ethics.

[ Edited: 21 January 2015 05:01 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2015 06:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2009-10-21
GdB - 20 January 2015 11:52 PM
Lausten - 20 January 2015 06:04 PM

Well, that is Mike’s style, but it’s pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes “ethical discourse” as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can’t be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.

You are missing a definition of ‘ethical discourse’??? Woow.

I’m not missing anything. You are missing that “discourse” occurs within a scientific framework and of course it should be ethical, and “rational” is redundant.

Sure, the “is/ought” problem is a foundation, as in, just because Europeans were ahead in the technological curve in the 16th century that didn’t mean that they ought to go around shooting and enslaving people. But, if you say because we have survived based in large part on cooperation, that doesn’t mean we ought to continue to cooperate, you’ d be wrong, I can prove it on an etch-a-sketch. To do that proof, I would use the scientific facts of evolution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2015 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5254
Joined  2007-08-31
Lausten - 21 January 2015 06:54 AM

I’m not missing anything.

Well, you said that I used the word ‘ethical discourse’ as if it was something undefinable, so I defined it for you.

Lausten - 21 January 2015 06:54 AM

You are missing that “discourse” occurs within a scientific framework and of course it should be ethical, and “rational” is redundant.

You are missing that there are other rational discourses than scientific ones. You equate ‘rational’ with ‘scientific’. Obviously you did not read the rest of my previous posting.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2015 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 20 January 2015 09:27 AM

...The point I am trying to make here is that early man, needed science, used science and understood science. Religion most likely evolved from science after a major plague or when mankind went on the extinction list in 74,000 B.C. and there was only from 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth… 
 

And maybe the Nation of Islam (not to be confused with Islam) is correct that a rogue black scientist created the first white man.  Both ideas are awfully speculative, don’t you think? 

Since we are speculating, I would say, based on the naturally evolved superstitious behaviors of humans, I would suspect that we were religious, far before we were scientific.

[ Edited: 21 January 2015 05:29 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2015 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4410
Joined  2014-06-20
TimB - 21 January 2015 05:27 PM
MikeYohe - 20 January 2015 09:27 AM

...The point I am trying to make here is that early man, needed science, used science and understood science. Religion most likely evolved from science after a major plague or when mankind went on the extinction list in 74,000 B.C. and there was only from 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth… 
 

And maybe the Nation of Islam (not to be confused with Islam) is correct that a rogue black scientist created the first white man.  Both ideas are awfully speculative, don’t you think? 

Since we are speculating, I would say, based on the naturally evolved superstitious behaviors of humans, I would suspect that we were religious, far before we were scientific.

Of course we were. Ignorance is the perfect breeding ground for religion.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2015 08:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2009-10-21
TimB - 21 January 2015 05:27 PM
MikeYohe - 20 January 2015 09:27 AM

...The point I am trying to make here is that early man, needed science, used science and understood science. Religion most likely evolved from science after a major plague or when mankind went on the extinction list in 74,000 B.C. and there was only from 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth… 
 

And maybe the Nation of Islam (not to be confused with Islam) is correct that a rogue black scientist created the first white man.  Both ideas are awfully speculative, don’t you think? 

Since we are speculating, I would say, based on the naturally evolved superstitious behaviors of humans, I would suspect that we were religious, far before we were scientific.

Simply looking at archaeology, you can see that cultures developed with belief systems about what to do to remain in harmony with nature or make the crops grow, then the real world had a drought or hurricane or flood and either a new myth developed to replace the old, or the culture just died out as people “lost faith”. The faithful would lament that, saying something was lost, but the only thing lost was the wrong belief.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2015 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 22 January 2015 08:46 AM
TimB - 21 January 2015 05:27 PM
MikeYohe - 20 January 2015 09:27 AM

...The point I am trying to make here is that early man, needed science, used science and understood science. Religion most likely evolved from science after a major plague or when mankind went on the extinction list in 74,000 B.C. and there was only from 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth… 
 

And maybe the Nation of Islam (not to be confused with Islam) is correct that a rogue black scientist created the first white man.  Both ideas are awfully speculative, don’t you think? 

Since we are speculating, I would say, based on the naturally evolved superstitious behaviors of humans, I would suspect that we were religious, far before we were scientific.

Simply looking at archaeology, you can see that cultures developed with belief systems about what to do to remain in harmony with nature or make the crops grow, then the real world had a drought or hurricane or flood and either a new myth developed to replace the old, or the culture just died out as people “lost faith”. The faithful would lament that, saying something was lost, but the only thing lost was the wrong belief.

Earth’s cycle from cold to hot is 100,000 years. Say that humans were developing 110,000 years ago. They were domesticating animals, creating grains from wild grasses, creating the calendars for all the fruits and nut, animals. That would have been very scientific.  The graves around the world show us Red Orca burials. It is thought they believed in after life and reincarnation, and heaven on our other planets. But we have no proof they believed in deities.
 
Science was used, knowledge was valued.
 
Earth 110,000 years ago was in the coldest point so only a small part of earth was available for mankind. As the earth warmed, man expanded. And as the oldest genesis stories tells us the population would greatly increase then a plague would greatly reduce the population time and time again.
   
Now in 74,000 to 71,000 BC the super volcano just about wipe mankind out and set the earth into an ice age. The earth was still in a cold part of its climate cycle. Any areas on earth that had developed would have been very small and close to the equator. Remember, our scientist agree that mankind was between 500 and 5,000 people on earth.
 
Every week there is something new out about our past. Stuff like “First, Reich said, the genetic data clarifies that people migrated into the region, bringing farming with them, rather than agricultural practices spreading alone as they were learned, adopted, and passed along by different societies coming into contact with the cultures practicing them.
 
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/ “. Bring the farming with them, completely different that everything being taught today. Bring it from where?
   
It took 40,000 years of selective farming to create wheat and have its own DNA not connected to the original wild grass. So far wheat was already created at all the spots the archaeologist claimed was the cradle of civilization.
   
The questions are, was the 40,000 years of selective farming done before or after Mt. Toba erupted? Did religion have deities before Mt. Toba?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2015 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
MikeYohe - 22 January 2015 10:52 AM

...Simply looking at archaeology, you can see that cultures developed with belief systems about what to do to remain in harmony with nature or make the crops grow, then the real world had a drought or hurricane or flood and either a new myth developed to replace the old, or the culture just died out as people “lost faith”. The faithful would lament that, saying something was lost, but the only thing lost was the wrong belief.

Earth’s cycle from cold to hot is 100,000 years. Say that humans were developing 110,000 years ago. They were domesticating animals, creating grains from wild grasses, creating the calendars for all the fruits and nut, animals. That would have been very scientific.  The graves around the world show us Red Orca burials. It is thought they believed in after life and reincarnation, and heaven on our other planets. But we have no proof they believed in deities.
 
Science was used, knowledge was valued.
 
Earth 110,000 years ago was in the coldest point so only a small part of earth was available for mankind. As the earth warmed, man expanded. And as the oldest genesis stories tells us the population would greatly increase then a plague would greatly reduce the population time and time again.
   
Now in 74,000 to 71,000 BC the super volcano just about wipe mankind out and set the earth into an ice age. The earth was still in a cold part of its climate cycle. Any areas on earth that had developed would have been very small and close to the equator. Remember, our scientist agree that mankind was between 500 and 5,000 people on earth.
 
Every week there is something new out about our past. Stuff like “First, Reich said, the genetic data clarifies that people migrated into the region, bringing farming with them, rather than agricultural practices spreading alone as they were learned, adopted, and passed along by different societies coming into contact with the cultures practicing them.
 
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/ “. Bring the farming with them, completely different that everything being taught today. Bring it from where?
   
It took 40,000 years of selective farming to create wheat and have its own DNA not connected to the original wild grass. So far wheat was already created at all the spots the archaeologist claimed was the cradle of civilization.
   
The questions are, was the 40,000 years of selective farming done before or after Mt. Toba erupted? Did religion have deities before Mt. Toba?

TimB:

[color=pink]I find far-out ideas to be fascinating.  But we probably shouldn’t hijack this thread with this discussion.  Also, it doesn’t fit well in the topic of Philosophy, IMO.[/color]

[ Edited: 23 January 2015 12:45 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2015 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01

I agree. We should stay on subject.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2015 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2012-02-24
BugRib - 03 January 2015 11:05 PM

I don’t get why the is/ought “problem” is considered a serious philosophical concern.  It’s not that I disagree with it.  I understand that, strictly speaking, you can’t get an “ought” from just an “is”.  You must also have an objective.  If things are a certain way (is), and we have a certain goal in mind (objective), then science or logic can be used to empirically determine what we should do (ought) to achieve that goal.

Without an objective, I agree that you can’t determine an “ought” from just an “is”.

No, you’ve misunderstood. You’re asking the wrong question. You’re asking: can we get an INSTRUMENTAL OUGHT given (a) facts about of the world and (b) an objective/goal to strive for? Of course we can.

But that’s not the is-ought problem. The is-ought problem involves a VALUE OUGHT, not an instrumental ought.

Hence, in your terms, the is-ought problem is really the is-goal problem. You can’t get a goal from facts about the world. This is why it is a “serious” philosophical problem, because it’s an unsolvable problem. (Actually it’s a non-problem, just a common misunderstanding, because people frequently make moral statements without explicitly acknowledging their motivating desires but instead speak as if something inherent in the universe makes things right or wrong).

Facts and values are two different brain functions i.e. reason and emotion, knowledge and desires, thoughts and feelings. Goals come from human desires, human feeling. You can’t get goals from facts about the world. (Although science will increasingly be able to tell us the desires of an average human being, nonetheless it still can’t tell an individual what desires/goals are satisfying for them).

[ Edited: 12 February 2015 08:06 AM by mralstoner ]
Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6