'Is & Ought' in David Hume

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

I believe that scientifically, the concept of "ought" doesn't exist. I still use the word everyday, but only coloquially because it is based solely on animal instinct and animal desire.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a fairly straightforward thing, to me. In terms of human morality, I would sum it up as just because things are traditional doesn't mean they are right.

But then, I'm a simpleton.

[Mudhammam]

I believe that scientifically, the concept of "ought" doesn't exist. I still use the word everyday, but only coloquially because it is based solely on animal instinct and animal desire.

Right. "Ought" means "I'd really like it if you did X," with the recognition that likes/dislikes don't directly advance or diminish the flourishing of others (inducing potentially ourselves) while oughts/ought nots typically do.

Ought is like "I'd prefer" + "and if you don't oblige I'm going to force you."

[Whateverist]

The relevant difference is best demonstrated by Vorlon. He is into Hume. We ought to be.

[mralstoner]

It's been a while since I read Hume but my recollection is that Hume is in accord with common sense i.e. statements of "ought" are statements of end goals, and these can obviously only ever come from the human heart i.e. feelings, emotions, passions, desires. Action (in terms of end goals) is always (no exceptions) motivated by the anticipation of an emotional reward. (This is what Dan Gilbert calls affective forecasting).

Statements of "is" are beliefs about how the world works, they are a model of the world. Obviously that model is completely inert (in terms of end goals), and action is only possible with a motivating desire. IS statements (knowledge, facts) are thus only ever instrumental as tools in pursuit of emotional goals.

It's all very simple. 

BTW, Hume's manner of speaking is uber polite, hence "seems" is his polite way of saying: "you're an idiot".