We hold these truths to be self-evident

[Leela]

If Sally were your daughter you could (and would) answer that question! Because it is unreasonable not to eat - unless she needs to slim in order to be healthy and beautiful!

I’m looking for the chain of deductions that connects “Sally is hungry” to " Sally ought to eat."

I’m not disagreeing that Sally ought to eat at some point. I think she really should, but what no philosopher has ever accomplished is to apply rules of logic to show how the one can be deduced from the other.

Try this:
(1) Sally is hungry

(2) If she doesn’t ever eat she will die

(3) Sally just loves food. Eating is her favorite thing to do.

(4) It’s lunch time!

(5) [some other fact(s) about the nature of Sally or the world???]

…

(6) Therefore, Sally ought to eat

What fact about Sally’s nature can go in for (5) that is not a premise that something or someone ought to do or be something? You say that once we know the nature of humanity we can deduce rights–that we can deduce what should be from what is. Let’s try something much simpler and more specific. What do we need to know about the “nature” of Sally or the world that will force the logical conclusion that she ought to eat?

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I’m looking for the chain of deductions that connects “Sally is hungry” to " Sally ought to eat."

I’m not disagreeing that Sally ought to eat at some point. I think she really should, but what no philosopher has ever accomplished is to apply rules of logic to show how the one can be deduced from the other.

Why do you think she should eat? For no reason?

Try this:
(1) Sally is hungry

(2) If she doesn’t ever eat she will die

(3) Sally just loves food. Eating is her favorite thing to do.

(4) It’s lunch time!

(5) [some other fact(s) about the nature of Sally or the world???]

…

(6) Therefore, Sally ought to eat

What fact about Sally’s nature can go in for (5) that is not a premise that something or someone ought to do or be something? You say that once we know the nature of humanity we can deduce rights–that we can deduce what should be from what is. Let’s try something much simpler and more specific. What do we need to know about the “nature” of Sally or the world that will force the logical conclusion that she ought to eat?

That she will die! If you deny that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die you are implying that life is purposeless - which implies that reasoning is purposeless - which implies that your conclusion that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die is purposeless and there is no reason to consider it. Like everything else nothing would make sense and to attempt to arrive at any conclusions would be futile. Once you reject the value of reason you are reduced to silence… which is rather uncomfortable and frustrating to say the least! We would have to pretend that we are getting somewhere…

 

[Leela]

Why do you think she should eat? For no reason?
That she will die! If you deny that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die you are implying that life is purposeless - which implies that reasoning is purposeless - which implies that your conclusion that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die is purposeless and there is no reason to consider it. Like everything else nothing would make sense and to attempt to arrive at any conclusions would be futile. Once you reject the value of reason you are reduced to silence… which is rather uncomfortable and frustrating to say the least! We would have to pretend that we are getting somewhere…

The fact that she will die if she does not eat does not *in itself *imply that she *should *eat. You won’t be able to arrive at the conclusion we would both like to arrive at by simply referring to facts about the nature of Sally or the nature of the world or the nature of he realtionship between Sally and he world.

The only way we can reason from the fact that “if Sally does not eat she will die” to the conclusion that “Sally ought to eat” is to also presuppose some other “oughts” such as “Sally ought not to die.”

If we can’t even derive the claim that Sally ought to eat from facts about Sally’s nature you will have no better luck trying to derive human rights from human nature.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you think she should eat? For no reason?
That she will die! If you deny that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die you are implying that life is purposeless - which implies that reasoning is purposeless - which implies that your conclusion that it is not more reasonable to stay alive than to die is purposeless and there is no reason to consider it. Like everything else nothing would make sense and to attempt to arrive at any conclusions would be futile. Once you reject the value of reason you are reduced to silence… which is rather uncomfortable and frustrating to say the least! We would have to pretend that we are getting somewhere…

Leela! Once again you have completely ignored my argument that reasoning presupposes the need to reason.

To reject the belief that “Sally ought not to die” amounts to indifference as to whether she lives or dies. This is tantamount to rejecting the value of her life - and all life. To do that also entails rejecting the value of everything that life offers - including both the power of reasoning and the act of reasoning itself. It follows inexorably that there is no reason for you to reason or advance any further arguments. I’m afraid your only alternative to accept at least one “ought” or remain silent - which would be a great pity because I enjoy our discussions!

 

[Leela]

Leela! Once again you have completely ignored my argument that reasoning presupposes the need to reason.

Have not!!!

To reject the belief that “Sally ought not to die” amounts to indifference as to whether she lives or dies. This is tantamount to rejecting the value of her life - and all life.

I don’t reject the value of her hypothetical life. I only reject your assertion that we can deduce the value of her life from the fact that she is alive.

To do that also entails rejecting the value of everything that life offers - including both the power of reasoning and the act of reasoning itself. It follows inexorably that there is no reason for you to reason or advance any further arguments. I’m afraid your only alternative to accept at least one “ought” or remain silent - which would be a great pity because I enjoy our discussions!

Please keep in mind that this discussion revolves around your assertion that we can deduce human rights from statements about the nature of humanity–an assertion that I doubted from the start.

It now may be very clear to you that to reason toward human rights not only would we need to know about human nature but we would also need to presuppose certain values such as the value of human life. In doing so, you will not have deduced human rights but only presupposed them.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

To reject the belief that “Sally ought not to die” amounts to indifference as to whether she lives or dies. This is tantamount to rejecting the value of her life - and all life.

Then on what do you base the value of her life? Emotion?

I only reject your assertion that we can deduce the value of her life from the fact that she is alive.

So you cannot deduce that it is reasonable to save her life?

To do that also entails rejecting the value of everything that life offers - including both the power of reasoning and the act of reasoning itself. It follows inexorably that there is no reason for you to reason or advance any further arguments. I’m afraid your only alternative to accept at least one “ought” or remain silent - which would be a great pity because I enjoy our discussions!

Please keep in mind that this discussion revolves around your assertion that we can deduce human rights from statements about the nature of humanity–an assertion that I doubted from the start.

Are you denying that human beings have the power of reason? Surely not.

1.You believe the value of life cannot be deduced from the opportunities it offers - including the ability to reason.
2. Therefore there is no reason to believe reasoning is valuable.
3. Therefore it is not necessary to reason.
4. Therefore it does not matter whether you reason or not.
6. Therefore it does not matter whether anyone pays attention to your reasoning.

Reductio ad absurdum…

It now may be very clear to you that to reason toward human rights not only would we need to know about human nature but we would also need to presuppose certain values such as the value of human life. In doing so, you will not have deduced human rights but only presupposed them.

I have explained why no presupposition of values is necessary. The very fact that you are reasoning is evidence that you consider it to be valuable. Otherwise you would not waste your time and energy…

 

[Leela]

Are you denying that human beings have the power of reason? Surely not.

I’m willing to accept for the sake of argument that humans have a faculty called Reason.

1.You believe the value of life cannot be deduced from the opportunities it offers - including the ability to reason.

Right. My assertion is that the fact that we CAN reason does not imply that we OUGHT to reason. At least you haven’t demonstrated the chain of deductions yet. My claim is NOT that we OUGHT NOT to reason (as you keep taking my claim to be). It is only that we cannot get from

(1) Humans can reason

to

…
(10) Therefore, humans ought to reason

By only allowing facts about humans to fill in the remaining steps. If you want to get from (1) to (10) you will have to presuppose certain values and not just facts about humans.

1. Therefore there is no reason to believe reasoning is valuable.
2. Therefore it is not necessary to reason.
3. Therefore it does not matter whether you reason or not.
4. Therefore it does not matter whether anyone pays attention to your reasoning.

Reductio ad absurdum…

None of the rest of this makes any sense since 2 does not follow from 1. There may very well be good reasons that we ought to reason. My argument is only that the fact that we CAN reason in addition to any other facts about humans that you want to throw in will not get you to your conclusion.

You keep making the same logical error. I keep saying that you can’t get from A to B and you keep saying that that is absurd because it means that you can’t get to B at all. All my claim means is that you’ll have to find some other way to get to B.

Human rights can’t be deduced from facts about humans alone. You will need to also presuppose values about humans before we can deduce rights.

I have explained why no presupposition of values is necessary. The very fact that you are reasoning is evidence that you consider it to be valuable. Otherwise you would not waste your time and energy…

Of course I find reasoning valuable. That’s why I do it. Perhaps you can infer that I value reasoning from the fact that I DO reason, but you cannot deduce the fact that reasoning is valuable from the fact that we CAN reason without presupposing some postulate like “whatever humans can do is valuable.” But wouldn’t that mean rape and murder are valuable?

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Are you denying that human beings have the power of reason? Surely not.

Good.

I don’t reject the value of her hypothetical life.

Then on what do you base the value of her life? Emotion?

I only reject your assertion that we can deduce the value of her life from the fact that she is alive.

So you cannot deduce that it is reasonable to save her life?

Human rights can’t be deduced from facts about humans alone. You will need to also presuppose values about humans before we can deduce rights.

I have explained why no presupposition of values is necessary. **The very fact that you are reasoning is evidence that you consider it to be valuable and necessary. **Otherwise you would not waste your time and energy…

Of course I find reasoning valuable. That’s why I do it. Perhaps you can infer that I value reasoning from the fact that I DO reason, but you cannot deduce the fact that reasoning is valuable from the fact that we CAN reason without presupposing some postulate like “whatever humans can do is valuable.”

Then we can agree that “ought” is based on “is”, not on “can”. It is a fact that reasoning occurs. It not only occurs but it is necessary in order to achieve anything. To abandon reason amounts to rejecting life.

My assertion is that the fact that we CAN reason does not imply that we OUGHT to reason.

You are making an isolated assertion without taking into account its implications. Logic divorced from reality can lead to self-contradiction - as it does in this case. Why doesn’t it imply that we ought to reason? You are forgetting that reasoning is presupposed in every rational assertion that you make. You cannot evade that fact, try as you will… If you do not reason you cannot make any intelligible assertions whatsoever. You become like an animal which just exists and knows nothing of what is true or false. It lives according to its instincts without seeking to persuade others they are misguided…

My claim is NOT that we OUGHT NOT to reason (as you keep taking my claim to be).

I don’t. Your claim is that we cannot jump from “we can (and do) reason” to “we ought to reason”. It’s a dogma that you have established in your mind because you believe David Hume is the ultimate authority on the source of morality. If you were right morality would exist in a vacuum.

Of course I find reasoning valuable. That’s why I do it. Perhaps you can infer that I value reasoning from the fact that I DO reason, but you cannot deduce the fact that reasoning is valuable from the fact that we CAN reason without presupposing some postulate like “whatever humans can do is valuable.”

That is obviously ridiculous. “whatever humans can do” is at the opposite extreme from “what humans **need **to do”. You are arguing in effect that humans need not do anything. Is that a reasonable view to adopt? You are denying the very foundation of your argument. If humans need not do anything they need not produce any arguments.
And where are you then with your distinction between “is” and “ought”? It disappears - like everything else - into a meaningless existence in which all communication is redundant. Even the necessity of logic disappears! There is really no need to respect logic because, according to you, it cannot be deduced from what happens in the real world. It is an arbitrary set of rules that we can safely ignore!

But wouldn’t that mean rape and murder are valuable?

No. You have selected two evil activities to establish your conclusion - as if rape and murder are comparable to reasoning! The essential difference is that reasoning is the basis of knowledge and successful communication.

 

[Leela]

Good.

Then on what do you base the value of her life? Emotion?

I don’t think that everything needs to be “based on” something else.

So you cannot deduce that it is reasonable to save her life?

Here you go again. All I’m saying is that you can’t deduce that her life ought to be saved from facts about her. You’ll also need to reason from at least some value to get there.

The very fact that you are reasoning is evidence that you consider it to be valuable and necessary.

Otherwise you would not waste your time and energy…

You are saying that we don’t need to presuppose certain values because we already presuppose certain values?

I see nothing wrong with holding some values axiomatically as we hold certain facts axiomatically in mathematics. We couldn’t reason about math without presupposing certain facts, and we can’t reason about values without presupposing certain values such as “human life is valuable.”

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Then on what do you base the value of her life? Emotion?

In that case your starting point is the value of her life for which you can offer no reason or justification. Doesn’t that strike you as more unreasonable than the explanation that her life is valuable because of the opportunities it offers for intellectual, physical, moral, emotional, social and spiritual development, enjoyment and fulfilment? It is absurd for a pragmatist to reject this explanation because it is an incentive for pursuing these activities and living **successfully **rather than opting out of life as a meaningless farce which leads nowhere.

So you cannot deduce that it is reasonable to save her life?

Here you go again. All I’m saying is that you can’t deduce that her life ought to be saved from facts about her.

Poor Sally! You deduce that there is no reason to do anything at all for her due to a mantra without justification: that there is a gulf between facts and values. Why make this assumption? Simply because David Hume made it! No matter how many times I state that **to reason presupposes that reasoning is valuable **you ignore me and remain blithely entrenched in your dogma. Why do you reason if reasoning is not valuable? Do you have no choice in the matter? And even if you have no choice doesn’t it obtain results? (Yet another pragmatic criterion of truth. It seems that your thinking has become compartmentalised…)

You’ll also need to reason from at least some value to get there.

Can you give me one good reason why? Just one? Why must we have two unrelated aspects of reality? What about Occam’s razor? Isn’t it uneconomical? What is the reason for this arbitrary separation of facts from values? Are values redundant?

I have explained why no presupposition of values is necessary. **
The very fact that you are reasoning is evidence that you consider it to be valuable and necessary. **

Otherwise you would not waste your time and energy…
You are saying that we don’t need to presuppose certain values because we already presuppose certain values?

No! I am saying that what you are doing presupposes that what you are doing is valuable. You do it because it is essential and unreasonable not to do it. It is as natural as eating and breathing. Without reasoning you are not really living at all. If you choose not to reason you are in effect rejecting not only the value of life but life itself. It is the same if you opt out by choosing not to eat, drink or do anything at all. You are being totally negative and rejecting the opportunity of having experiences.

I see nothing wrong with holding some values axiomatically as we hold certain facts axiomatically in mathematics. We couldn’t reason about math without presupposing certain facts, and we can’t reason about values without presupposing certain values such as “human life is valuable.”

Do you regard math as a subjective exercise? Surely not. Yet you put values in that category? Why the arbitrary difference? There is only one reason I can think of and it is linked with Hume’s scepticism. It is the metaphysical assumption that we are merely “bundles of perceptions” and that thought is merely “a little agitation of the brain”. No wonder there is an abyss between facts and values! Reality has become a meaningless and purposeless state of affairs in which persons do not even exist…

Of course Hume never ventured beyond “bundles of perceptions”. He was a phenomenalist from whom you have derived your rejection of “Ultimate Reality”, but you do not realise its full implications. He rejected the “self” which he could not find when he introspected and deduced that it does not exist. Do you believe you have no self? That you are just a collection of events occurring in a particular place at a particular time? If you do you shouldn’t even be discussing whether there are self-evident truths because truths have disappeared with everything else! You have finished up at the same destination I have already indicated - that reasoning is valueless - but in a more sinister context: nihilism.

The outcome of your downgrading of values is the upgrading of material objects. We become things which just exist. One materialist on this forum agreed with my conclusion that all our activity amounts to nothing more than one set of atomic particles affecting another - if materialism is true. Which disposes of not only human rights but all human theories - including pragmatism - for once and all! The only problem is that materialism also disposes of itself… What a pity! After all that hard work the materialist has ended up - metaphorically - by cutting his own throat! …

Let me see…On reflection I think I’ll stick to theism after all, Leela … At least it can be combined with pragmatism. Which is more than we can say for nihilism…