“Is” vs “Ought”

⸺

  • “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.”
  • “The core of the is/ought problem is the logical gap between descriptive and normative statements.”
  • “No amount of factual information about the state of the world can, on its own, lead to a moral judgment without some form of normative premise.”
  • “This issue raises significant questions about the objectivity and grounding of moral statements. It challenges the view that moral truths can be derived solely from empirical facts.”
  • “The is/ought problem, championed by Scottish philosopher David Hume, highlights the difficulty of deriving normative statements (“oughts”) from purely factual statements (“is”).”

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Present a rigorous formulation of the is/ought problem.
    1. Background
    2. Hume’s Observation
    3. Quote from Hume
    4. Philosophical Implications
    5. Conclusion
    6. The Is/Ought Problem: A Rigorous Formulation
  2. Provide rigorous formulation of the best arguments against the proposed irreconcilable is/ought divide.
  3. For all the proposed refutations of the is/ought divide you presented, many of them appear to depend on unsubstantiated axioms or intersubjective facts that do not properly bridge the is/ought divide, and the others appear to simply make moral statements ontologically indistinguishable from expressions of emotions. Please comment on this.
    1. 1. Reliance on Unsubstantiated Axioms or Intersubjective Facts
    2. 2. Reduction of Moral Statements to Expressions of Emotions
    3. Conclusion
  4. Please provide a list of resources that clearly articulate the is/ought problem and address dissenting opinions.
    1. Books
    2. Journal Articles
    3. Online Resources
    4. Multimedia
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz Questions
    2. Quiz Answers
    3. Is/Ought Problem Quiz
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Is/Ought Problem Discussion Questions:

Present a rigorous formulation of the is/ought problem.

The is/ought problem, also known as Hume’s guillotine, is a philosophical question that concerns the relationship between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). This problem is central to meta-ethics and was prominently articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Here is a rigorous formulation of the is/ought problem:

Background

In his 1739 work “A Treatise of Human Nature,” David Hume discusses how people often make claims about what ought to be done based on statements about what is the case. He observes that there seems to be a logical leap from descriptive statements (is) to normative statements (ought).

Hume’s Observation

Hume points out that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of what is, but he notes a significant gap in their reasoning. According to Hume, the premises in their arguments typically consist entirely of ‘is’ statements, but their conclusions suddenly switch to ‘ought’ statements without justification.

Quote from Hume

In “A Treatise of Human Nature,” Hume writes:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”

Philosophical Implications

  1. Logical Gap: The core of the is/ought problem is the logical gap between descriptive and normative statements. No amount of factual information about the state of the world can, on its own, lead to a moral judgment without some form of normative premise.
  2. Need for Normative Premises: To validly derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, one must introduce at least one normative premise. Without such a premise, the conclusion remains unsupported by the descriptive premises alone.
  3. Meta-Ethical Consequences: This issue raises significant questions about the objectivity and grounding of moral statements. It challenges the view that moral truths can be derived solely from empirical facts.
  4. Ethical Theorizing: The is/ought problem implies that ethical theories must justify their normative claims independently of empirical observations, leading to debates about moral realism, emotivism, and constructivism among others.

Conclusion

Hume’s guillotine suggests that ethical reasoning requires a careful examination of the premises and their logical connectivity. It challenges philosophers, ethicists, and indeed anyone engaged in moral reasoning, to clearly distinguish between how things are and how they believe things should be, thereby underlining the need for robust normative justifications in ethical arguments.

The Is/Ought Problem: A Rigorous Formulation

The is/ought problem, championed by Scottish philosopher David Hume, highlights the difficulty of deriving normative statements (“oughts”) from purely factual statements (“is”). Here’s a rigorous breakdown:

1. Types of Statements:

  • Is-Statements (descriptive): These statements describe the world as it is. They are objective and verifiable through observation or logic. Examples:
    • The grass is green. (Observable fact)
    • All bachelors are unmarried men. (Logical definition)
  • Ought-Statements (prescriptive): These statements express moral values, preferences, or obligations. They are subjective and not directly verifiable. Examples:
    • You ought to help those in need. (Moral value)
    • We ought to eat healthy foods. (Preference)
    • Stealing is wrong. (Obligation)

2. The Gap:

The crux of the problem lies in the apparent disconnect between these two categories. Is-statements tell us how things are, while ought-statements tell us how things should be. The question becomes:

  • Can we logically bridge this gap and derive “oughts” solely from “is”?

3. Hume’s Fork:

Hume further complicates the issue with his “fork.” It proposes that all knowledge falls into two categories:

  • Relations of Ideas: These are truths based on logic and definitions (e.g., all bachelors are unmarried). They hold true regardless of the world’s state.
  • Matters of Fact: These are truths based on observation and experience (e.g., the grass is green). They depend on the world being a certain way.

4. The Challenge:

Hume argues that “ought” statements don’t fit neatly into either category. They aren’t logical truths like relations of ideas, nor are they directly observable facts like matters of fact.

  • If “oughts” aren’t derived logically or empirically, how can we justify them?

5. The Problem:

The is/ought problem raises concerns about the validity of moral reasoning. If “oughts” can’t be logically derived from “is,” then:

  • Are moral judgments subjective and arbitrary?
  • Is there any objective basis for morality?

Conclusion:

The is/ought problem remains a central debate in ethics. While there’s no universally accepted solution, philosophers continue to explore how to bridge the gap between facts and values.

Provide rigorous formulation of the best arguments against the proposed irreconcilable is/ought divide.

The debate around Hume’s is/ought problem has generated several counterarguments that challenge the idea of an irreconcilable divide between descriptive and normative statements. Here are some of the best-formulated arguments against this proposed divide:

  1. Naturalistic Ethics:
    • Argument: Proponents of naturalistic ethics argue that moral properties are reducible to natural properties. For example, what is ‘good’ can be understood in terms of beneficial natural properties like promoting well-being or survival.
    • Philosophical Basis: This view often aligns with ethical naturalism, which posits that moral truths are derived from and consistent with empirical facts about the world.
    • Example: A naturalist might argue that “Pain is bad” can be derived from empirical observations about pain causing suffering and harm, which are naturally undesirable states.
  2. Internalism in Meta-Ethics:
    • Argument: According to ethical internalism, the recognition of moral facts intrinsically motivates one to act accordingly. If understanding a fact about the world necessarily entails a moral reaction, then the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ may not be as clear.
    • Philosophical Basis: Internalism links moral judgment with motivation, suggesting that to know what is right is to feel compelled to act on it.
    • Example: Discovering that someone is in pain inherently involves the motivation to alleviate their pain, thereby bridging the is/ought gap.
  3. Pragmatic Integration:
    • Argument: Some philosophers argue that the practices of explanation, justification, and understanding in human life inherently blend descriptive and normative elements, making the is/ought distinction less relevant in practical reasoning.
    • Philosophical Basis: This approach often draws on pragmatic theories of truth and meaning, suggesting that the usefulness of bridging ‘is’ and ‘ought’ in everyday decision-making undermines the strict separation.
    • Example: In deciding how to treat others, the factual understanding of their experiences and the normative commitments to fairness and empathy are inseparably linked.
  4. Constructivism in Ethics:
    • Argument: Constructivists hold that ethical truths are constructed from a set of rational procedures or practices rather than discovered in the empirical world. Here, ‘ought’ statements are derived from rational consistency with agreed-upon principles rather than empirical observation alone.
    • Philosophical Basis: Ethical constructivism focuses on the procedures of rational agreement and coherence among rational agents.
    • Example: If all rational beings agree that causing harm is wrong, this consensus can construct a normative truth that “One ought not harm others” from the factual understanding of what harm entails.
  5. Rule-Based Consequentialism:
    • Argument: This theory suggests that normative principles can be derived from the outcomes they produce, which are empirically observable. Thus, ‘ought’ statements are supported by ‘is’ statements about the consequences of following certain rules.
    • Philosophical Basis: Rule-based consequentialism links the moral worth of actions to the outcomes of following general rules rather than individual acts.
    • Example: If empirical evidence shows that societies flourish when they uphold the rule “Do not lie,” then one can argue that one ought to follow this rule based on the observed consequences.

Each of these arguments against the strict is/ought divide brings a unique perspective, suggesting that the transition from descriptive to normative is not only possible but sometimes inherent in understanding human values and rational decision-making.

Here’s a list of rigorous formulations against the irreconcilable is/ought divide:

1. Natural Law Arguments:

  • Moral Facts as Discoverable Facts: This perspective argues that moral truths exist objectively in the natural world, just like scientific facts. We can discover these truths through reason, similar to how we discover scientific laws. (Thinkers like Aquinas)
  • Values Embedded in Facts: This approach suggests that certain facts inherently carry value judgements. For example, the fact that humans are social creatures implies a value on cooperation. (Thinkers like Philippa Foot)

2. Error Theory:

  • Confusing “Is” and “Ought”: This theory argues that the is/ought problem arises from a misunderstanding. Moral statements (“oughts”) are actually disguised factual statements about human flourishing or well-being. We just haven’t fully understood the causal relationships between actions and their consequences. (Thinkers like G.E. Moore)

3. Emotivism:

  • Moral Statements Express Feelings: Emotivists suggest that “ought” statements don’t describe the world; they express emotions and attitudes towards certain actions. They function more like exclamations (“Boo to stealing!”) than factual claims. (Thinkers like A.J. Ayer)

4. Pragmatist Arguments:

  • “Oughts” Derived from Consequences: Pragmatists argue that moral worth arises from the practical consequences of actions. Actions are “good” if they lead to desirable outcomes (e.g., happiness, well-being) for individuals or society. (Thinkers like John Dewey)

5. Moral Psychology:

  • Emotions and Reasoning in Morality: This approach highlights the interplay between emotions and reason in moral judgements. Moral judgments involve both rational evaluation of facts and emotional responses to situations. (Thinkers like Jonathan Haidt)

6. Value-laden Descriptions:

  • Fact-laden Descriptions Can Imply Values: Some argue that seemingly neutral descriptions often carry implicit values. For example, describing someone as “wealthy” implies a positive value judgment compared to “poor.” These descriptive statements can then inform moral judgements. (Thinkers like Charles Stevenson)

These arguments challenge the idea of an absolute gap between facts and values. They explore different ways “oughts” might connect to “is,” even if the connection isn’t always straightforward.

For all the proposed refutations of the is/ought divide you presented, many of them appear to depend on unsubstantiated axioms or intersubjective facts that do not properly bridge the is/ought divide, and the others appear to simply make moral statements ontologically indistinguishable from expressions of emotions. Please comment on this.

The criticism you’ve articulated is insightful and points to the heart of ongoing debates in meta-ethics regarding the nature and justification of moral statements. Let’s address the two main issues you’ve raised: the reliance on unsubstantiated axioms or intersubjective facts, and the reduction of moral statements to expressions of emotions.

1. Reliance on Unsubstantiated Axioms or Intersubjective Facts

Many of the arguments against the is/ought divide do indeed seem to rely on some form of normative assumption or axiom that itself may not be justifiable purely through empirical or descriptive means. This challenge can be seen as follows:

  • Naturalistic Ethics: While it aims to derive ethical statements from natural facts, critics argue that it presupposes a normative standard (e.g., that well-being or survival is good) which itself is not a natural fact but a normative claim needing justification.
  • Internalism in Meta-Ethics: This approach hinges on the idea that recognizing certain facts inherently involves moral inclinations. Critics argue that this still does not explain why the moral reaction is the correct one, nor does it address cases where different individuals have divergent moral intuitions about the same facts.
  • Constructivism in Ethics: While it sidesteps the need for empirical grounding by focusing on rational agreement, the normative force of these agreements relies on the acceptance of rationality as inherently normative. Critics question why rational agreement should carry moral weight in itself.

Each of these approaches attempts to bridge the gap by introducing a normative component that is somewhat external to the empirical facts themselves, thus not fully closing the is/ought divide without presupposing some moral commitments.

2. Reduction of Moral Statements to Expressions of Emotions

The criticism that some ethical theories reduce moral statements to mere expressions of emotion refers primarily to non-cognitivist approaches like emotivism, which are indeed distinct from the arguments listed but share a similar foundational challenge:

  • Emotivism and Similar Theories: These theories suggest that moral statements do not assert truths but express emotional states or commands. Here, the is/ought distinction is bypassed by denying that ‘ought’ statements are truth-apt in the first place.
  • Pragmatic Integration and Rule-Based Consequentialism: While not reducing moral statements to emotions per se, these approaches can be critiqued for treating ethical reasoning as a matter of practical coherence or social utility rather than as statements about objective moral truths.

Critics of these views argue that such reductions fail to capture the normative force and objectivity that many believe are essential to morality. They suggest that turning moral judgments into expressions of emotion or social constructs undermines their authority and universality.

Conclusion

These critiques underscore a fundamental tension in meta-ethics: the challenge of grounding normative claims in a way that is both objective and substantively informative. Each approach to bridging the is/ought gap attempts to address this by either redefining the nature of normative statements, linking them to some form of naturalistic or rational foundation, or questioning the distinction’s relevance. However, each solution brings its own philosophical challenges, highlighting the depth and complexity of the is/ought problem in moral philosophy.

You’re right, there are weaknesses to consider in the arguments against the is/ought divide. Let’s delve into the critiques you mentioned:

1. Unsubstantiated Axioms and Intersubjective Facts:

  • Natural Law and Error Theory: These arguments do rely on assumptions. The existence of objective moral truths (natural law) or a hidden factual basis for morality (error theory) are debatable. Without strong evidence, they might seem like leaps of faith, not bridges across the is/ought gap.

2. Moral Statements as Mere Emotions:

  • Emotivism: While emotions play a role in moral judgments, simply reducing them to expressions of feeling is unsatisfying. It doesn’t explain the rational aspect of morality, where we weigh reasons and evidence before making moral decisions.

Here’s a broader point: Even if these arguments don’t fully close the is/ought gap, they can still nudge it closer.

  • Natural Law and Error Theory: Granting some objectivity to moral values, even if partially discovered, can help ground moral reasoning.
  • Emotivism: Recognizing the emotional core of morality can explain the passion behind moral convictions, even if reason is also involved.

Finding Middle Ground:

Perhaps the most productive approach is to acknowledge the differences between facts and values while recognizing some connections between them.

  • Moral judgments likely involve both descriptive elements (e.g., facts about human well-being) and prescriptive elements (e.g., moral principles).
  • Moral psychology supports this view, highlighting the interplay between reason and emotion in our moral compass.

The is/ought problem remains a complex issue, but these arguments offer ways to think about the relationship between factual observations and the values that guide our actions.

Please provide a list of resources that clearly articulate the is/ought problem and address dissenting opinions.

To deepen your understanding of the is/ought problem and explore various perspectives on this philosophical issue, including dissenting opinions, here’s a list of resources ranging from classic texts to more contemporary analyses:

Books

  1. “A Treatise of Human Nature” by David Hume
  • This foundational text is where Hume originally articulates the is/ought problem. The discussion is primarily found in Book III, Part I, Section I. Hume’s work is essential for understanding the original context of the problem.
  1. “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels
  • Rachels’ book is an introductory text that explains various ethical theories, including a discussion on the is/ought problem. It’s accessible for beginners and addresses both historical and contemporary views.
  1. “Hume’s Moral Theory” by J.L. Mackie
  • Mackie explores Hume’s ethical theories, focusing on his empiricism and its implications for the is/ought divide. This book delves into how Hume’s views have shaped modern ethical philosophy.
  1. “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong” by J.L. Mackie
  • In this book, Mackie introduces the concept of “moral skepticism” and discusses the subjectivity of ethical values, providing a critical examination of the is/ought distinction from a skeptical viewpoint.

Journal Articles

  1. “Hume on Is and Ought” by Charles Pigden
  • This paper critically examines various interpretations of Hume’s assertion about is and ought, discussing how it has been understood and misunderstood by philosophers. Available in Philosophical Quarterly.
  1. “The Autonomy of Ethics” by David Brink
  • Brink’s article argues against the view that moral principles are not derivable from non-moral facts, engaging with both supporters and critics of Hume’s is/ought distinction. Found in the Cambridge Companion to Hume.

Online Resources

  1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Entries on “Hume’s Moral Philosophy” and “Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism”
  • These entries provide a thorough overview of Hume’s moral philosophy and the broader debate between cognitivists and non-cognitivists, which relates to the is/ought problem.
  1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Entry on “David Hume: Moral Philosophy”
  • This resource offers a detailed explanation of how Hume’s views contribute to the ongoing debates in moral philosophy, including the is/ought problem.
  1. PhilPapers
  • A comprehensive directory of philosophy papers and books. You can search for specific topics related to the is/ought problem and find both historical and contemporary scholarly articles.

Multimedia

  1. “The Partially Examined Life Podcast”
    • This philosophy podcast often covers topics related to ethics and meta-ethics, including episodes that discuss Hume and the is/ought problem in an accessible format.
  2. “Philosophy Bites Podcast”
    • Look for episodes that feature interviews with contemporary philosophers discussing Hume and the broader implications of his work on moral philosophy.

These resources should provide a robust foundation for exploring the is/ought problem, its implications, and the variety of perspectives that philosophers have contributed to the debate over time.

Here’s a list of resources that explore the is/ought problem and address dissenting opinions:

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

  • Is/Ought Problem: https://plato.stanford.edu/ – This is a comprehensive overview that delves into the history of the problem, Hume’s arguments, and various proposed solutions.

2. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

  • Natural Law Ethics: https://iep.utm.edu/home/ – This entry explores the natural law tradition, a prominent response to the is/ought problem that argues for objective moral truths discoverable through reason.

3. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (May require library access)

4. Books:

  • David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (Original source of the is/ought problem)
  • G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica (Argues against the is/ought problem with the “open-question argument”)
  • J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Critiques various attempts to bridge the is/ought gap)

5. Articles:

These resources offer varying viewpoints on the is/ought problem. Some advocate for a clear divide between facts and values, while others explore ways to bridge the gap. Engaging with these diverse perspectives will give you a well-rounded understanding of this enduring philosophical debate.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Here is a 10-item quiz based on the discussion above regarding the is/ought problem, its implications, and various philosophical arguments:

Quiz Questions

  1. Who first articulated the is/ought problem?
  2. In which work did David Hume discuss the is/ought problem?
  3. What is the main issue with bridging the gap between ‘is’ statements and ‘ought’ statements according to Hume?
  4. Name one ethical theory that tries to derive ethical statements from natural facts.
  5. What does ethical internalism claim about moral facts and motivation?
  6. Which meta-ethical theory suggests that ethical truths are constructed from rational procedures or practices?
  7. What is the main critique against the argument that normative claims can be grounded in naturalistic ethics?
  8. According to critics, what does the reduction of moral statements to expressions of emotions fail to capture?
  9. Name a book by J.L. Mackie that discusses the implications of Hume’s empiricism on moral philosophy.
  10. What type of resource is “PhilPapers”?

Quiz Answers

  1. David Hume
  2. “A Treatise of Human Nature”
  3. No amount of factual information about the state of the world can lead to a moral judgment without some form of normative premise.
  4. Naturalistic Ethics
  5. Recognizing certain facts inherently involves moral inclinations, linking moral judgment with motivation.
  6. Ethical Constructivism
  7. It presupposes a normative standard (e.g., well-being or survival is good) which itself is not justifiable purely through empirical means.
  8. The normative force and objectivity that many believe are essential to morality.
  9. “Hume’s Moral Theory”
  10. An online directory of philosophy papers and books.

Is/Ought Problem Quiz

  1. What is the central question raised by the is/ought problem?
  2. Briefly describe the two main categories of statements philosophers distinguish between.
  3. What is Hume’s Fork, and how does it relate to the is/ought problem?
  4. According to the “Natural Law” argument (against the is/ought divide), what is the nature of moral truths?
  5. Briefly explain the “Error Theory” approach to the is/ought problem.
  6. How does Emotivism propose to understand moral statements?
  7. In the context of the is/ought debate, what is the significance of Moral Psychology?
  8. Why might someone criticize arguments like “Natural Law” and “Error Theory” for not resolving the is/ought problem?
  9. How does the idea of “Value-laden Descriptions” challenge the strict separation of facts and values?
  10. Briefly summarize two of the main weaknesses identified in the arguments against the is/ought divide.

Answers:

  1. Whether or not moral judgments (“oughts”) can be derived solely from factual statements (“is”).
  2. Is-Statements (descriptive) and Ought-Statements (prescriptive).
  3. Hume’s Fork divides all knowledge into “relations of ideas” (logical truths) and “matters of fact” (observable truths). It suggests “ought” statements don’t fit neatly into either category.
  4. Natural Law argues that moral truths exist objectively in the natural world, discoverable through reason.
  5. The Error Theory suggests that moral statements are actually disguised factual statements about human flourishing or well-being, though we haven’t fully grasped the connection.
  6. Emotivism argues that “ought” statements express emotions and attitudes towards actions, functioning more like exclamations than factual claims.
  7. Moral Psychology highlights the interplay between emotions and reason in moral judgments, suggesting both play a role.
  8. These arguments might rely on unsubstantiated assumptions about objective moral truths or a hidden factual basis for morality.
  9. Value-laden descriptions suggest seemingly neutral descriptions can carry implicit values, potentially influencing moral judgments.
  10. Weaknesses:
  • Some arguments rely on unproven assumptions about the nature of morality.
  • Others might reduce moral statements to mere emotions, neglecting the role of reason.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Here are 15 discussion questions that delve into the themes and arguments related to the is/ought problem discussed above:

  1. What do you perceive as the most compelling argument for the existence of an is/ought divide as proposed by David Hume?
  2. How does the reduction of moral properties to natural properties challenge the traditional understanding of ethical reasoning?
  3. Discuss the implications of ethical internalism. Does the internal motivation to act according to moral facts necessarily validate an ethical claim?
  4. How does constructivism address the challenge of deriving ‘ought’ from ‘is’? Is the construction of ethical truths a sufficient response to Hume’s guillotine?
  5. Can rule-based consequentialism effectively bridge the is/ought gap by linking moral rules to their empirical outcomes? Why or why not?
  6. In what ways might the reliance on intersubjective agreement in ethical constructivism be problematic?
  7. Analyze the philosophical consequences of reducing moral statements to expressions of emotion. How does this approach impact the objectivity of moral claims?
  8. How effective are naturalistic ethics in addressing the critiques of relying on unsubstantiated axioms or normative assumptions?
  9. Discuss the role of rational agreement in ethical constructivism. Can rational consensus alone form a valid basis for moral norms?
  10. Reflect on the potential limitations of pragmatic approaches to the is/ought problem. Can practical utility truly inform moral obligations?
  11. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Mackie’s arguments regarding moral skepticism as it relates to the is/ought problem?
  12. How do non-cognitivist theories such as emotivism respond to the challenge of bridging the is/ought divide?
  13. Consider the implications of the is/ought problem in contemporary ethical debates, such as those surrounding environmental ethics or bioethics.
  14. How does the discussion on the is/ought problem illuminate the challenges faced in applying ethical theories to real-world problems?
  15. Evaluate the impact of philosophical discussions like the is/ought problem on everyday moral decision-making. Is understanding this philosophical debate practical for non-philosophers?

These questions are designed to encourage critical thinking and deeper understanding of the philosophical issues surrounding Hume’s is/ought problem and its modern interpretations and criticisms.

Is/Ought Problem Discussion Questions:

  1. Do you think there’s a fundamental difference between facts and values, or is there a spectrum between them? Why or why not?
  2. If moral truths exist objectively, how would we go about discovering them? Can reason alone be sufficient?
  3. Imagine a world where everything factual is known. Would that automatically tell us what we ought to do? Explain your answer.
  4. How can emotions play a positive role in moral decision-making? Are there any downsides to emotions influencing our morality?
  5. Can you think of any examples of “value-laden descriptions” in everyday life? How might these influence our judgments?
  6. In your opinion, does the is/ought problem make morality subjective and unreliable? Why or why not?
  7. If moral statements are simply expressions of feeling, can we ever have genuine moral disagreements? Explain your position.
  8. Does the is/ought problem pose a bigger challenge for religious ethics or secular ethics? Why do you think so?
  9. How might advancements in neuroscience impact the debate on the is/ought problem?
  10. Is it possible to bridge the is/ought gap without compromising the objectivity of facts or the subjectivity of values? Discuss.
  11. How can we ensure our moral judgments are based on reason and evidence, not just personal biases or emotions?
  12. Think of a moral dilemma you’ve faced. Can you identify how both factual considerations and value judgments played a role in your decision?
  13. In a world with diverse cultures and moralities, how can we find common ground for ethical discussions?
  14. Does the is/ought problem have any practical implications in our daily lives? If so, how?
  15. If you could design an experiment to test the is/ought problem, what would it look like?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Present a rigorous formulation of the is/ought problem.
    1. Background
    2. Hume’s Observation
    3. Quote from Hume
    4. Philosophical Implications
    5. Conclusion
    6. The Is/Ought Problem: A Rigorous Formulation
  2. Provide rigorous formulation of the best arguments against the proposed irreconcilable is/ought divide.
  3. For all the proposed refutations of the is/ought divide you presented, many of them appear to depend on unsubstantiated axioms or intersubjective facts that do not properly bridge the is/ought divide, and the others appear to simply make moral statements ontologically indistinguishable from expressions of emotions. Please comment on this.
    1. 1. Reliance on Unsubstantiated Axioms or Intersubjective Facts
    2. 2. Reduction of Moral Statements to Expressions of Emotions
    3. Conclusion
  4. Please provide a list of resources that clearly articulate the is/ought problem and address dissenting opinions.
    1. Books
    2. Journal Articles
    3. Online Resources
    4. Multimedia
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz Questions
    2. Quiz Answers
    3. Is/Ought Problem Quiz
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Is/Ought Problem Discussion Questions:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Political Theory & Human Nature

    Political ideologies are deeply connected to assumptions about human nature. Understanding human nature accurately is crucial for effective political ideologies, influencing policies and systems. The degree of power corrupting humans, innate generosity, laziness or industriousness,… Read more

  • Dangers: Dissipating Promises

    This article discusses the problem of unfulfilled promises in theistic ideologies and provides a taxonomy of common promises. It explores how these ideologies respond to challenges and the dangers of advertising unfulfilled promises. The quiz… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Hobbes

    In this article, Thomas Hobbes engages in a dialogue with a curious teenager, discussing his philosophical views on human nature, the social contract, and governance. Hobbes explains his concept of the state of nature, describing… Read more

  • Charting Kant

    Immanuel Kant’s philosophical tensions are evident in his conflicts with various adversaries on pivotal concepts. His Transcendental Idealism faced opposition from Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, while the Categorical Imperative was challenged by Hume, Nietzsche, and… Read more

  • Scientific “Observations”

    The content provided discusses the spectrum of scientific observation, inductive and deductive inference, the nature of observation in science, and includes quizzes and discussion questions. The spectrum covers direct sensory observations, instrument-assisted observations, qualitative and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Kant

    In the article, Immanuel Kant engages in a dialogue with a curious teenager, Alex, who seeks to understand Kant’s philosophy. Alex begins by asking about the categorical imperative, a central concept in Kant’s moral philosophy.… Read more

  • Emergence

    Emergence is a complex concept discussed in philosophy and science, encompassing various definitions emphasizing different aspects of the phenomenon. Common types of emergence include weak, strong, epistemological, ontological, systemic, functional, and dynamic emergence. Respected names… Read more

  • Charting Leibniz

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s philosophical contributions sparked tension with his adversaries. His Monadology clashed with Hume and Locke’s empiricism, while Marx’s materialism challenged Leibniz’s theistic views. Sartre and Nietzsche critiqued Leibniz’s deterministic stance. Berkeley and Wittgenstein… Read more

  • Salaries and Public Judgment

    The debate over public control of private salaries involves complex philosophical and ethical considerations. The issue revolves around the legitimacy, principles, and potential consequences of imposing salary caps. Philosophical principles like utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and communitarianism… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Leibniz

    In the article, a dialogue unfolds between the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and a curious teenager eager to understand his philosophy. Leibniz explains his concept of monads, fundamental, indivisible units of reality that reflect the… Read more

  • Charting Spinoza

    Spinoza’s philosophy sparked significant tension with his counterparts. His pantheism clashed with the dualism and transcendence upheld by Descartes and Aquinas. Ethical naturalism contradicted Kant and Plantinga’s divine-based morality. While Spinoza’s determinism conflicted with Descartes… Read more

  • Cromwell’s Rule

    Cromwell’s Rule, named after Oliver Cromwell by Dennis Lindley, advises against assigning absolute probabilities of 0 or 1 to events, fostering an open-minded and flexible mindset. It prevents epistemic blindness, enhancing rational decision-making and scientific… Read more

  • Charitable Engagement

    The tactics to understand interlocutors’ positions include charitability, steel-manning, and a question-heavy disposition. Charitability involves assuming good faith, steel-manning presents the strongest version of an argument, and the question-heavy approach fosters understanding through questions. In… Read more

  • Thomas Hobbes

    Thomas Hobbes significantly influenced political philosophy, emphasizing the necessity of a strong central authority and the idea of the “social contract.” His 7 greatest contributions include the social contract theory, state of nature concept, materialism,… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Spinoza

    The article presents a dialogue between Baruch Spinoza and a curious teenager who explores Spinoza’s philosophical ideas. The teenager, eager to understand Spinoza’s concepts, begins with Spinoza’s view of God and Nature. Spinoza explains that… Read more

  • Rationality and Free Will

    This article explores whether rationality is dependent on free will, with determined AI systems also capable of rational responses. The debate delves into the deep philosophical nature of decision-making and autonomy, prompting a discussion on… Read more

  • Charting Descartes

    René Descartes’ philosophical legacy and his tensions with critics like Hume, Nietzsche, and Marx shape modern thought. Critics challenge Descartes’ self-awareness and dualism, embracing fluidity and holistic views. Descartes’ foundationalism and Cartesian system are critiqued… Read more

  • Seneca

    Seneca, a leading Stoic philosopher, profoundly impacted Western thought with his emphasis on ethics, virtue, and rational living. His practical teachings and accessible writing bridged the gap between academic philosophy and everyday life. Seneca’s influence… Read more

  • Charting Epicurus

    Epicurus, a Hellenistic philosopher, clashed with Aristotle and Plato over atomism. His hedonism conflicted with Aristotle’s eudaimonia, and Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics challenged Epicurus’ hedonism. Explore Epicurus’ rejection of divine intervention, his sensory-based epistemology, and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Dennett

    In this article, the philosophical contributions of Daniel Dennett are explored through hypothetical dialogues. Dennett’s intentional stance is a method of predicting and explaining behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and intentions to entities. This approach… Read more

  • Immanuel Kant

    Immanuel Kant, an influential 18th-century German philosopher, redefined modern philosophy with his innovative ideas on epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. His contributions include the concept of transcendental idealism, the categorical imperative, and the distinction between phenomena… Read more

  • Are Quantum Physics “Spiritual”?

    Quantum physics and the spiritual realm are often discussed together due to their mysterious nature, but they belong to different domains, with quantum physics being grounded in material science. Common erroneous conceptualizations contributing to the… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus