Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is/Ought Problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    "I'm sure that we, and all rational and reasonable people, could agree that some actions are definitely wrong", "[I]Who, in their right mind, would say torturing a baby for fun is right? The person would have to be deranged.
    Though there have been instances that humans killed (sacrificed) throughout history. So WE all agree it's wrong, but obviously a great many have disagreed historically.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is/Ought Problem

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Do you mean meaning here as in semantic meaning, i.e. the meaning of a phrase or sentence?

    Or do you mean meaning in a grander sense, as in the purpose of life?
    I was applying meaning to goodness or VALUES in the is/ought problem on the one hand and also how the distinction is made between subjective beings. So I was applying the term to how you get a goodness or value (what SHOULD BE) from what is (the descriptive). How do you derive a measure from what is (the descriptive)? Then, is it just subjective preference that establishes it? What makes that good? I was asking Dionysus to give his view on the matter. Is it established by goal-driven behavior, in his opinion, or by other opinion, which I see as the same - preference?

    So, I see a two-fold problem, 1) the is/ought problem and 2) the problem of subjective being and values in determining meaning.

    Peter

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    South Windsor, CT
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is/Ought Problem

    I hold that what "ought" to be, in what I perceive to be the common sense of the phrase, can be derived from fact.

    Nothing inherently ought to be a certain way, because nothing matters. It doesn't matter whether x universes exist, nor whether the inhabitants of those realms experience happiness. Thus is the nature of facts. The question of what ought to be is a purely a question of organisms, since this question only has meaning from the perspective of a consciousness with desires. In a common sense, I believe, moral action can be considered that which produces happiness for others, or satisfies their desires, known and unknown. One can (although it is often extremely difficult to) know which action produces maximal happiness.

    If one can know what produces the most happiness, then one can objectively define morality. From Dionysus' original post:
    [...] how do we derive moral truths in the absence of objective facts about the universe?
    If there are no facts, no truth may exist (I assume). To pervert this situation slightly, we may assume that the chaos of a fact-less universe is a known fact. Knowing this, conscious organisms in this universe will need to decide whether they will be happier apathetically ignoring their condition or striving fruitlessly to fix it. Of course, knowledge of whether they will be happier in apathy or strife requires knowledge, thus fact, further perverting the model. Short answer: we cannot.
    Are objective moral truths a kind of fact?
    Yes, if it can be objectively determined what produces maximal happiness.
    If so, what other facts support them?
    The factual knowledge of what makes people maximally happy.
    Are they self-evident facts i.e. simply brute facts of the universe?
    The facts of what make organisms happy can be facts, but the derived moral facts are only factual relative to that organism. For example: Organism N has one source of happiness, and this is the presence of object G. It is then a brute fact that the presence of G with N produces happiness for N. G is not inherently good or moral, but is factually moral (i.e. produces maximal happiness) from the perspective of N. Let's say N has a comrade M who receives enjoyment from H. N possesses H and M possesses G. The objectively moral thing would be for the exchange of G and H between N and M. From the perspective of the universe, however (if we are to poetically assume its consciousness), it does not matter whether N or M reach maximal happiness.

    So, a mathematical perspective on morality. Consider a happiness function H(n), which takes in all data n about a universe and returns the happiness. If maximal morality is considered to be maximal happiness, then the maximal morality is the absolute maximum of H(n), or a matrix of data u where H(u) > H(v) where v is each member of the set of all universe matrices excluding u.
    Last edited by YaprakDolma; April 28th, 2018 at 01:27 PM.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Problem
    By Swindall in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: August 8th, 2010, 01:07 PM
  2. Help me with a problem I don't know I have
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 31st, 2007, 09:05 AM
  3. NK problem: op ed
    By cat's meow in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 2006, 09:56 PM
  4. The problem with God
    By Lightkeeper in forum Religion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: March 11th, 2005, 07:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •