Moral Oughts

[Acrobat]

This question is primarily reserved for Atheists who subscribe to Moral Realism.

You drop your wallet, I’m tempted to keep it/steal it to buy myself an Xbox.

A moral realist, at least in regards to the scenario above would agree, that stealing is wrong, and that this is an objective truth.

So if a realist came up to me, and said stealing is wrong, I can understand that they are stating a fact, an objective truth in doing so.

Now if the realist says to me that I ought not steal, are they also expressing an objective truth? Or is it more of a subjective goal than an objective truth?

If I said no it’s not wrong to steal, according to moral realism, I’d be stating something factually incorrect, like stating the earth is flat.

Now if i said I reject the statement that I ought not steal, am I rejecting a fact, an objective truth here? Or just some subjective goal you and others want me to follow?

Hi Acrobat,

The is/ ought problem is a result of a deontological view of ethics.  But that view is flawed.  A duty based ethics is a contradiction in terms.  The moral it the chosen, but a duty is something you must perform regardless of what your judgment says.  There are no categorical imperatives. Nature does not place duties on you.   But there are hypothetical imperatives.  If you want x you must do y.  If you want to live you must eat, if you want to live you must obtain cloths, shelter, tools, etc.  The bridge between an is and an ought is values.  If you value your life and want it to continue, you must take certain actions. Those actions are not arbitrary but are based on your nature.  Your nature and the actions it requires are facts.  Facts are objective.

I see the duty as the judgement. The duty is to do good, and not to do bad.

When I judge something my friend did as bad, I’m saying it’s something he ought not have done.

Im not referring to some sort of duty that’s separable from good, but inseparable from it.