LINK Has Hume's is/ought problem finally been solved?
So the thorn in the side of moral progress might finally be pulled from whatever part of our metaphorical body that it got lodged in when Hume articulated that you cannot logically derive an is from an ought.
Cosmic Skeptic has outlined a clever work around and given us a foundation to make objective moral statements (at least insofar as statements about what will maximise pleasure) which if we're lucky, might start the ball rolling for some serious work to be done in establishing a global moral framework to be taught and implemented around the world.
Share your thoughts, criticism, outbursts of joy, etc
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I forget, does the Catagorial Imperative have an is/ought issue?
StephenHenkel
Level 4
Apr 24, 2019
0
That's an interesting perspective. I can imagine that the enforcement of laws would require some form of violence, physical or otherwise, inevitably.
That said, I don't think that necessarily violates the CI.
The CI states that under a given set of circumstances, if it's logically inconsistent for everyone to act a certain way, then we should not act that way (essentially).
The nuance is the "under a given set of circumstances." Meaning that while violence for violence sake would violate the CI, violence as punishment for punishable crimes would not be logically inconsistent, because it could be done every such instance without contradiction of values.
Does that makes sense? I'm sure I can phrase that better...
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.