Posts: 30
Threads: 1
Joined: June 2, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: 'Is & Ought' in David Hume
June 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm
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.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell
Even if god did exist, he has yet to prove it, and our doubt is justified.
Posts: 23099
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: 'Is & Ought' in David Hume
June 4, 2015 at 5:10 pm
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.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: 'Is & Ought' in David Hume
June 6, 2015 at 1:10 pm
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2015 at 1:11 pm by Mudhammam.)
(June 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm)PhilliptheTeenageAtheist Wrote: 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."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: 'Is & Ought' in David Hume
June 6, 2015 at 2:47 pm
The relevant difference is best demonstrated by Vorlon. He is into Hume. We ought to be.
Posts: 597
Threads: 133
Joined: March 17, 2012
Reputation:
5
RE: 'Is & Ought' in David Hume
June 15, 2015 at 9:56 am
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".
