The answer to the is-ought problem.
The is-ought problem by David Hume asks: given descriptive facts about the worldthat something is a certain wayhow exactly can we know what we ought to do with it? How can we know how to act?
G.E. Moore asks a similar question. What exactly do we mean when we say something is good? What does it mean when we say something is right or wrong?
The answer has eluded us because it has always been right in front of us. As someone searching for their spectacles in darkness whilst wearing them.
If we ask the question: In relation to what, do we as living beings define right and wrong?
The answer lies within the question itself. It is in relation to ourselves. It is in relation to us being alive. It is in relation to our very fundamental essence as living things. To live! To survive! To thrive!
It is in relation to this fundamental property itself, that arises the phenomenon of right and wrong. It is in relation to this property unique to any living thing, that the world around it, can be judged to possibly be good or bad for it. Even if something is not directly relevant to ones survival, if it affects the organism in a meaningful manner, there will in some way be a relation to a survival mechanism.
G.E. Moore asks a similar question. What exactly do we mean when we say something is good? What does it mean when we say something is right or wrong?
The answer has eluded us because it has always been right in front of us. As someone searching for their spectacles in darkness whilst wearing them.
If we ask the question: In relation to what, do we as living beings define right and wrong?
The answer lies within the question itself. It is in relation to ourselves. It is in relation to us being alive. It is in relation to our very fundamental essence as living things. To live! To survive! To thrive!
It is in relation to this fundamental property itself, that arises the phenomenon of right and wrong. It is in relation to this property unique to any living thing, that the world around it, can be judged to possibly be good or bad for it. Even if something is not directly relevant to ones survival, if it affects the organism in a meaningful manner, there will in some way be a relation to a survival mechanism.
Comments (68)
What kind of survival are we talking about? A rock survives as itself only to the extent that it remains more or less self identical over time. But a living organism will perish if it remains exactly the same. What the organism attempts to preserve is a normative pattern of functioning in the face of continually changing conditions. And as for humans, our normative patterns of functioning, our goals and purposes, are continually changing over the course of cultural history. Within any given era and community, for each individual there will be particular goals and purposes, and the criterion of good and bad is aligned according to such goals. But as the cultural communities evolve, what constitutes good and bad changes along with purposes. If there is anything consistent which survives all these transformations of the human perhaps it is the simple fact of pattern itself. Only something that changes itself in a patterned way can know good and bad. The moment a rock is formed it is already on its way to no long being a rock, because it doesnt perpetuate itself in a consistently patterned way.
This is shitty Randian claims to non-existent properties. The only possible way this gets off the ground is admitted it is entirely subjective. And then that defeats the premise. So, good luck!
You're right that on it's own it is subjective. This is the text that follows in the chapter :wink:
"This on its own, however, does not help us determine what is right or wrong specifically. We can easily descend into murderous chaos in the notion that our actions are for survival or self-preservation. To go deeper, we must first, go beyond."
, good to see that you have done some reading. Tell us, what in your opinion is the Open Question Argument, and how does it relate to the topic?
Fair enough. Probably won't have time. I did read Nussbaum's Capability Approach. It all seems very middle class (human rights/human dignity). Does she not essentially argue that human flourishing should be the universal goal of all ethical systems? Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But not being a philosopher, I can't tell if this stuff is useful or not. I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it.
Is that right?
A shame.
THis wouldn't get you closer to solving it, and it isn't the case. It's a preference of yours for reading hte term 'the good'. This violates its applicability to anyone else, but the person who assents to this reading of 'the good' as a relationship property. This is the entire issue in a nutshell, seemingly ignored, as it is in the Objectivist Ethics by commanding assent to a particular desire ("To Live! To Surive! To Thrive!"). Its not relevant that rejecting that desire might be irrational (whatever else could be so rational as to continue being?). But incredulity doesn't help. More on that below..
As soon as that assent is denied, the relation fails.
Quoting Banno
Good suggestions, but I don't think referring to other people is a good way to answer a direct question about your conceptions, is it? If the idea is that your view is directly derivative, providing three sources across two, arguably three generations, might not be as helpful as you think. Then again - it's TPF lol.
Quoting Tom Storm
It is useful for understanding human behaviour, but it essentially is a position (in all versions I've seen, from Moore to Harris) that relies on mere incredulity in the face of denial. This, to me, is left wanting and doesn't inform me at all.
So what is good is to survive, to live, to thrive?
Can you think of something that enables you to survive, and yet that is not good? Something that enables you to thrive, and yet is not good?
Ill save you the trouble of reading the other two. Its the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness.
Lets just say I find their universalism to be riddled with parochialism.
Lets see if it helps Tom.
A self-published Amazon title with a one-sentence description and no customer feedback. Reported to moderators as self-promotion in accordance with site guidelines against "Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters".
What are the site rules about spruiking, @Jamal?
But
Quoting Vivek
I asked you to apply this to your "survive, to live, to thrive"... looks bang on topic to me.
Seems to me - without reading your book - that the bit you are missing is how ethics intrinsically involves not what you want, but how you relate to other folk.
But it's up to you whether you choose to reply or no.
Seems to me that people are forever banging on about 'the good', as if it were out there to be discovered, or simply a matter of common sense, but actually, it seems slippery, a contingent thing, a piece of construction work. I am happy to be guided by the idea that one should try not to cause suffering and work to prevent it. But this is always tied to a point of view, or a set of values. There is no transcendent source material.
You are pretty much in agreement with Moore and Foot, then.
No link posted.
We also know that we are neurological wired to favour whatever outcome serves us. So, our evolutionary adjusts have, so some degree, led us to associate 'good' outcomes as 'ought to be' situations.
It does seem to suit species survival. The problem behind this though is the tools used to assess how favourable an outcome is alongside our temporal appreciation - short vs long term repercussions.
Where it comes down to basic survival (meaning immediate existential threats) the is-ought is overruled by instinctual apparatus.
Thanks. :up:
I doubt that you - Our aw shucks, Im not a philosopher, Aussie Everyman has trouble knowing the difference between right and wrong very often.
Quoting T Clark
Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time.
What Joshs says. And my curiosity here is what 'ethical correctness' consists of. It's likely not the same thing as 'the good' given its contingent and shifting nature.
Quoting T Clark Quoting T Clark
Whether you or I can make reasonable choices on occasion is not really the point. The point is what lies as foundational for moral behaviour and why. Uncovering this seems to be the role of a philosopher, it's probably beyond the intuitions of a couple of assholes on the internet.
But it's not "on occasion." It's almost always. I don't think I've ever done wrong by accident - because I didn't know it was wrong. It's not that I've never done wrong, but when I did it, I knew it. It isn't that hard to tell.
Quoting Tom Storm
Whether or not you and I are philosophers, we are acting as philosophers here on the forum. We are trying to hold ourselves to the same standards we hold philosophers to. Little kids playing football are football players. From what I've seen, many philosophers are at least as big assholes as you and I are.
I don't know what this means. The only time I need to know right from wrong is in some "particular situation."
The counterpoint would seem to be that what you "know" as right and wrong might not be what others "know" as right and wrong. That said, most everyone knows right from wrong when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Theft, assault, rape, murder, torture.
:rofl: That's funny.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, and I agree. I don't 'use' philosophy when I make decisions. I go by intuition, which no doubt is influenced by culture, upbringing and language.
But here's the thing, we are discussing how moral behaviour works and this concept of 'the good' keeps arising. What is it? I am interested in how doing wrong make sense if there is no foundational basis or transcendent source of the good. Seems to me that what @Joshs wrote earlier is accurate - when a philosopher seeks to situate morality some place, it often seems to end up as:
Quoting Joshs
Quoting T Clark
Yes, and each time, in each particular situation, how can you be sure that what makes that situation right or wrong draws from the same rules, criteria and justifications that you depended on the previous time, or 20 years ago?
You and I have been through this before and you don't agree with my formulation - right vs. wrong behavior is a personal decision. Anything else isn't morality at all, it's social control - what society does to keep the skids greased.
Why does it matter? Why can't I change my understanding?
I'm not talking about a morality as a code of conduct, I'm talking about whether or not right and wrong have any meaning apart from cultural and personal? What do you think of this issue?
If all it is entirely personal, then why would you or I judge others for making bad or wrong discussions or celebrate good actions?
We wouldn't. I don't see much value in judging other people, which isn't to say I never do. It does make sense to respond to their behavior - "Hey! Stop that!" or "Thank you."
The almost universal agreement about the most significant moral issues I outlined above doesn't change from time to time or culture to culture, as least when it comes to members of what one considers one's own community..
Quoting T Clark
It sounds like were in agreement.
Yay!
Quoting Janus
Dont confuse universal use of labels like rape, murder, theft and genocide with universal agreement on whose actions
deserve these labels. Without such universality the labels are only as useful as the stability of the social configurations within which they are employed.
For example, don't conflate the normal condemnation of murder with the practical ethical question as to which deeds deserve the appellation. The point is that if an act is identified as murder it will be almost universally condemned.
As you noted, we are in agreement, but, you know how it goes when you think of the perfect response after the argument is over. To whit:
Quoting Emerson - Self-Reliance
Try reading some case law... (im jesting, but its very, very clear that the boundaries of all these things are murky and mostly institutional. The 'universally recognized' part would be russian-dolled within everyone's differing outer limits).
You're touching the heart of something profound: life itself is the bridge from is to ought.
Because life has an intrinsic orientation: to survive, to persist, to thrive.
Given that orientation, descriptive facts ("this is dangerous," "this is nourishing") immediately imply prescriptive action ("avoid this," "seek that").
No external 'principle' is needed, it's built into the nature of being alive.
In a sense:
Is: "This supports life."
Ought: "Therefore, I ought to move toward it."
The very fact that you are alive already loads reality with value.
Life = the original source of value.
Youre very close to something that philosophers like Hume, Moore, and others glimpsed but didnt fully land.
This idea also lines up perfectly with the core axiom of Synthesis philosophy: Life = Good.
You can find the formal paper HERE
Don't feel too bad, the connection between ends, the unity by which anything is any thing at all, and life's maintenance of its own form is the key thread that Aristotle develops through the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics. It's a quality insight and can be developed in a number of ways. Lots of thinkers still pursue this basic framework and Saint Thomas Aquinas' extension and refinement of it.
Yes, I mention that thread in my paper - it has 26 citations.
This isn't a new idea (It came to me through the Torah), this is the clarification and formalisation of it in its distilled form:
The Trifecta - Formal Definition of the First Three Axioms
1. Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation: Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living
subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is
the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication: All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not
]discovered; it is enacted by life.
2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement: Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and
adaptation.
Explanation: From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that
propagate itself. This is not moral, it's mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and
innovation are selected for because they enable continuation.
Implication: What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. Good can be structurally
defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement: For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
Explanation: A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce.
Therefore, belief in lifes worth isnt merely cultural or emotional, its biologically and
structurally enforced. This is not idealism; its existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. Life is Good is not a
descriptive claim about all events; its an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.
Please do read the paper.
Quoting Vivek
I've just read how you were condescended - it was the exact same people who refused to engage in my thread, thinking sophistry makes them clever.
Just here to stroke their ego.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."