P
PseuTonym
Guest
Can that “ought claim” be derived from any combination of “is facts”?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
For clarity’s sake what sense of the word “ought” is being used? If the contingengent sense is being used forming an argument for that is easy.
B
Beryllos
Guest
Your survival is more likely.
O
o_mlly
Guest
“Oughts” can only be meaningful once the facts of human nature are agreed.
All human needs generate a corresponding right. All rights generate a corresponding obligation or “oughts” to provide for those needs.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I don’t think so. But I’ve read theories that try to explain how it is possible. A naturalistic account of normativity is a holy grail among meta-ethics.
My reasoning for saying no is because lay out all the facts about crossing the road, and cars. And then the conclusion “you ought to look both ways before crossing”. You can’t logically derive that conclusion without something about what you ought to do in the premises.
My reasoning for saying no is because lay out all the facts about crossing the road, and cars. And then the conclusion “you ought to look both ways before crossing”. You can’t logically derive that conclusion without something about what you ought to do in the premises.
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Maybe we can construct an actual counterexample scenario to persuasively support your point of view.
Suppose that we are filming a video designed to persuade people to look both ways before crossing. To display the consequences of failing to look both ways before crossing the street, we film an actor who fails to look both ways. The video will give the impression to viewers that the street crosser suffers serious negative consequences. To give a satisfactory performance, the actor ought to refrain from looking both ways before crossing.
On the other hand, the guideline “look both ways before crossing” is a rule of thumb. The existence of our counter-example doesn’t warrant the conclusion that the rule of thumb is defective. Our counter-example is analogous to “man bites dog” or “this clover has four leaves.” Its rareness (in comparison with dog bites man or three-leaf clover) is part of what makes it attract attention as newsworthy or simply entertaining.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Persuading people doesn’t require a logical argument. Logical, in the sense that a valid, sound academic argument is required. My point is illustrated in the following argument.
- Cars are massive
- Being hit by something massive can kill you.
C. Being hit by a car can kill you - One needs to cross the street to get where you’re going.
- Crossing the street can get you hit by a car.
C2. Crossing the street can kill you.
N - All the various premises and sub-conclusions you can draw.
Final conclusion: You ought to look both ways before crossing the street.
Now to get to the final conclusion validly, you need to have a premise regarding what one ought to do. That premise would be a normative premise, not a naturalistic premise. Which lets us derive a normative conclusion.
Not sure if I addressed the worry. Sorry, it’s late.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The assumption is that causing yourself extreme bodily harm and injury is something which ought to be avoided. However, I suppose if you are a masochist, then the assumption would not be operative.
S
seagal
Guest
I will just throw it out there that looking both ways is useless for a blind person.
In any case, I’ll assume the intent is one should be careful if one wants to avoid injury. Therefore I would say that the “is” statement is “Crossing the street without due care and attention is dangerous.”
E
e_c
Guest
Does a purpose count as an “is”?
That’s the question.
That’s the question.
- Status