Moral Oughts

[John 6IX Breezy]

OFC, but that duty is itself informed by your evaluative premises, spoken or silent. For the umpteenth time.

This is a necessity of all realist oughts.

Is-evaluative premise- therefore ought.

John is a man, therefore I should hit John....isn’t.....valid.

John is a man, men should be hit, therefore I should hit John....follows.

Do you understand?

Hell, even “men should be hit, therefore I should hit john” isn’t valid. We failed to specify that John was a man. We assumed it, cuz John, lol.

Does saying John should be hit have the same validity as saying I should hit John? Are both valid conclusions once we know that John is a man and men should be hit? Or is there a difference?