Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

[Kulindahr]

Re: Can you derive an "ought" from an "is"?

I would argue that survival is a far less optimal standard for morality than well-being is. If you are to curb the notions of morality to only survival, an extreme amount of well-being could easily be sacrificed as long as it doesn't compromise survival. I usually hate pointing towards science-fiction movies to make a point, but they do tend to serve as a kind of oculus into our culture, and your comment about curbing morality to survival reminded me of the film "I, Robot" where the robots, to ensure humanity's survival, decides to imprison every human being, thus protecting them from any potential for harm. Would such a system as that be considered moral, as it all but guarantees the survival of a species? A system of well-being would, by necessity, include a consideration of survival. Survival does not necessarily include consideration of well-being.

I would not consider locking everyone up to be "survival". But beyond that, you may have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

Ryan's reply to Sam's reply.

Right on target -- Sam is skewered.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I imagine Sam wouldn't have made such a stir had he subtitled his book, 'How Philosophy Can Determine Human Values.'

 

[bankside]

No no no. That whole division of thinking, that Ryan would like to stake out as a separate discipline, has a name in science: the hypothesis.

Then this:

If physics were to presuppose that string theory is correct, it would commit the deeply unscientific sin of asserting a fundamental, revolutionary finding that it hadn’t actually made. If Sam assumes that science will elucidate moral reality by identifying the correct ethical theory, his science of morality commits that same sin when it presupposes that welfare maximizing consequentialism is correct.

Physics doesn't even suppose it can ever conclusively determine whether string theory is correct or not, never mind making any assertions that it already knows. Science is the enterprise of trying to find out anyway.

That's exactly what Sam Harris is doing with morality: looking for answers in the same way. Ryan is just grasping at straws.

 

[zoltanspawn]

No no no. That whole division of thinking, that Ryan would like to stake out as a separate discipline, has a name in science: the hypothesis.

Then this:


Physics doesn't even suppose it can ever conclusively determine whether string theory is correct or not, never mind making any assertions that it already knows. Science is the enterprise of trying to find out anyway.

That's exactly what Sam Harris is doing with morality: looking for answers in the same way. Ryan is just grasping at straws.

I believe Ryan is accurate in identifying 'well-being' as an 'axiom' which Sam's science of morality assumes; the axiom is arrived at through deliberation, and as an idea in itself is not subjectable to subsequent empirical review like a hypothesis would be. Reasoning does not always lead to subsequent testing. An example of this distinction might be like this: it is a hypothesis that wearing shiny loafers leads to well-being, and this hypothesis could be tested; but the idea of well-being itself is an axiom which is presupposed as a part of that hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that because there is a part of science which considers problems, then such consideration is the essence of science? I wouldn't agree. Hypothesis-making is neither specific to, nor the best notion of science.

Regarding the quote, Ryan wrote, "If physics were to presuppose...". He doesn't write that physics does presuppose. So, if Sam were to presuppose the correctness of well-being...which he does...his contentions are outside the realm of science.

 

[ludolfo]

its all words words words