The Is-Ought Problem
- Thread starter Shirosaki
- Start date
I'll post the definition from wikipedia
The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottishphilosopher and historian, David Hume (1711–1776), is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's Law and Hume's Guillotine.
Quote from Hume's book:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it
Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine.
The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottishphilosopher and historian, David Hume (1711–1776), is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's Law and Hume's Guillotine.
Quote from Hume's book:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it
Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine.
Hume asks, given knowledge of the way the universe is in what sense can we say it ought to be different?
I can't grasp the essence of what it is talking about 
The issue of debate with this is that the ought in a statement is not derived from fact or observation, therefore carries no weight of truth to it. In other words you could break it down like this.
"Because of gravity, I am standing on the ground. Without gravity, I would constantly be up-side down."
The first sentence is based on scientific fact, or as close to fact as science cares to claim (i.e. the theory of gravity). The second statement could potentially be true, since we have never been on a planet that did not have gravity. According to what we know about gravity, such a thing should be impossible, though we can never say for certain that such a planet does not exist. Because this statement has no reliance on what we have observed or regard as fact, it is an ought; a statement which only carries weight because it can't be disproven.
Consider a politician's speech. Oughts are a huge part of political rhetoric. On one hand, there are facts which they say. Things like "unemployment has decreased by so much since I took office" or "the war has ended after I was last elected." These are facts that have been established and recorded as happening in the time the person has been in office. They are is statements. The ought statements come in when their campaign speech begins to make claims and promises: things which politicians are famous for not delivering should they win. When a real critical thinker is watching these speeches, they are often putting a lot of effort into setting apart the is and ought statements during the debates and speeches.
That's my undestanding, anyway.
"Because of gravity, I am standing on the ground. Without gravity, I would constantly be up-side down."
The first sentence is based on scientific fact, or as close to fact as science cares to claim (i.e. the theory of gravity). The second statement could potentially be true, since we have never been on a planet that did not have gravity. According to what we know about gravity, such a thing should be impossible, though we can never say for certain that such a planet does not exist. Because this statement has no reliance on what we have observed or regard as fact, it is an ought; a statement which only carries weight because it can't be disproven.
Consider a politician's speech. Oughts are a huge part of political rhetoric. On one hand, there are facts which they say. Things like "unemployment has decreased by so much since I took office" or "the war has ended after I was last elected." These are facts that have been established and recorded as happening in the time the person has been in office. They are is statements. The ought statements come in when their campaign speech begins to make claims and promises: things which politicians are famous for not delivering should they win. When a real critical thinker is watching these speeches, they are often putting a lot of effort into setting apart the is and ought statements during the debates and speeches.
That's my undestanding, anyway.
That makes infinitely more sense to me than any of the stuff I've seen so far, thanks ^_^
No problem. I did a bit more reading on it today (think I missed the point a bit in my above post) and would love to discuss it further if you're still feeling up to that. It's pretty fascinating stuff.
Well, it's just that looking at it a bit more, the focus seems to be that this issue comes into play when you are jumping from is to ought rather than how based in fact an ought statement is. In other words, you can't look at what is and logically jump to what ought to be done about it. There's never a completely logical explanation for it. When justifying an ought statement, you always ultimately have to fall back on saying something like "that's just the way it is," or "because it's the right thing to do." Now the big thing with this concept is that it's apparently still being heavily debated. There are people from multiple fields of study who either agree or disagree with this.Yeah go ahead, I'd love any insight
I was wrong earlier. The Is-Ought problem comes into play when you're trying to create a call to action based on present facts. Here's the best sort of example I was able to come up with.
You're sitting in a room with a politician and he's discussing his revolutionary new foreign policy that will promote trade between nations and end all wars. Sounds pretty good, right? Let's test his thought process.
"Why do we need this?" you ask.
"Because there will be no more war and there will be cooperation between all nations," he says.
"Why is that important?" you press further.
"Because with less war, fewer people die." he says with confidence.
"and why is that something we should want?"
Here is where he hits a brick wall. The only real answer he could muster up would be something along the lines of "because people dying is bad." Maybe he'll say "well, you don't want to die, do you?" which is avoiding the question. There's a certain point where the logic involved with taking action, or claiming what ought to be done, can only rely on what our society brands as morally correct or worth striving for.
The way you put it is very easy to understand, and makes even more sense to me, but I'm not sure if I still fully understand outside of the isolated example.
I found this formula for an Is-Ought Problem:
Argument: A ought to be B therefore C
Reality: C cannot be logically verified by the ‘ought’ connection of A and B
I suppose with your example A is the active foreign policy, B is the proposed foreign policy, and C is that less people would die.
It seems like a really interesting parameter, but very hard to detect without practice or perspective. Maybe we can try and come up with a few examples to help clarify the rule?
Sure. I haven't had much time to mull it over in my head, but in theory it could be applied to any action you would want to take. I really think that a formula overcomplicates things with this. All you really have to do is look at any call to action and start to question it. Eventually the reasoning will crumble down. The implied reasoning is because it will change or fix something, but you can never get a good answer for why that thing needs to be changed.
Personal goals seemed like a very common example of this sort of thing. Say your goal in life was to be a physician.
Say your reason is because you like helping people. In this case the A is you and B is you becoming a physician, something which you are not presently. C is your personal reasoning that being a physician will allow you to help people.
This scenario still crumbles under the constant asking of "Why?"
Why would you want to help people? Because of the common belief in our society that helping others is a good thing to do. There's really no simpler explanation than that. Being a physician, or any profession for that matter, allows you to "help" people in one form or another, so why does a pre-med student feel that being a Doctor is the way to do it? "Because it's the choice I made" or "because I want to be one" are really the only explanations you could hope to get when all is said and done.
The abortion issue is actually a great example. On one hand you have pro-life people who apply the common belief that murder is wrong. On the other hand, you have pro-choice people who believe in protecting civil liberties. Both sides are relying on a basic moral principle in which everyone believes, the only difference is which belief each one chooses to apply the issue of abortion to. You could walk up to a pro-lifer and ask why murdering a fetus is so bad. While they may look at you like you're the scum of the earth, you wouldn't really get a straight answer. Same thing if you were to talk to a pro-choicer and ask why women should have the right to their own bodies. These principles are believed in with no further justification other than "it's just the way it is."
Making any more sense?
Perfect sense now actually, thanks a lot! ^_^ I was mulling it over and thought of the example of a drug to cure cancer.
I invent a drug to cure cancer, and someone says that I ought to distribute it to the world. This "ought" is based on meta-ethics, and doesn't consider an equally useful action like destroying the drug, on the reasoning that the deaths not distributing the drug would cause would also help to regulate and prevent over-population. This other "ought" is overlooked because it doesn't coincide with society's expectations of what is "good", as it is not overtly a good act whereas distributing it is. Both are equal in their arbitrary nature.
Basically, any "ought" can be taken as an opinion, and can be scrutinised and dismissed as such using "cold" logic.
That's my thinking anyways, you've been extremely helpful so thanks
Exactly. Now you've got it. No problem, I really enjoyed learning about this.Perfect sense now actually, thanks a lot! ^_^ I was mulling it over and thought of the example of a drug to cure cancer.
I invent a drug to cure cancer, and someone says that I ought to distribute it to the world. This "ought" is based on meta-ethics, and doesn't consider an equally useful action like destroying the drug, on the reasoning that the deaths not distributing the drug would cause would also help to regulate and prevent over-population. This other "ought" is overlooked because it doesn't coincide with society's expectations of what is "good", as it is not overtly an good act whereas distributing it is. Both are equal in their arbitrary nature.
Basically, any "ought" can be taken as an opinion, and can be scrutinised and dismissed as such using "cold" logic.
That's my thinking anyways, you've been extremely helpful so thanks