In which I argue that an ought can be derived from an is, that such an ought claim may be correct or incorrect, and that such evaluation of a claim may be subjective or objective provided the circumstance. The argument therefore bridges both the gap between is-ought claims and the gap between the subjective-objective moral claims.

It all begins with getting an ought from an is. The first premise is this:

Human beings have no choice but to act on the desire they are convinced will bring the most pleasure and least pain.

Consider Hume's Law with this example:

Your hand IS in the fire therefore you OUGHT to pull it out

One can see how ridiculous this is, the ought is inherent in nature, what Steven Woodford has loosely coined an “axiomatic ought”. Human beings don't have a choice when it comes to acting on the desire that they believe will give the most happiness, it's a neurological function of the brain; taking action is predicated on the brain convincing you (via dopamine) that you’re on the right path. That behind all of our behaviour is the pursuit of happiness has long been debated but I ask you to consider this yourself. If you can think of an action that isn’t motivated by the belief that it will bring pleasure then please comment.

Because we naturally and inexorably value wellbeing it is always implied in is-ought statements. That we will do what we believe will give us the most pleasure is so intuitively known that linguistically we forgo the if by way of assumption:

It is raining outside therefore [if you believe it would give you pleasure] you ought to take an umbrella

In Philosophy Vibe’s presentation of the is-ought problem they use the example of a bottle of poison:

There is a bottle of poison therefore (if you want to stay healthy) you ought not to drink it

They say this is a valid statement because it is a non moral fact. Then they apply the same scenario but with the involvement of another agent:

There is a bottle of poison therefore you ought not to put it another persons drink (it’s morally wrong)

But why is it morally wrong? How can a natural fact about the world - what is, tell us what ought to be? The problem here is that they are asking the wrong question. Reframing the question with our axiomatic ought it appears so:

There is a bottle of poison therefore [if you believe it will harm (wellbeing value)] you ought not to put it in another persons drink

The value of wellbeing is inherent in the situation. Here is the all important point though: The is-ought is still valid not because it is morally right or wrong but because it is simply predicated on the belief (of the agent) that it is right or wrong, and as importantly, such belief is rooted in the value of wellbeing. Whether it is actually morally right or wrong in this situation would require an investigation. The is-ought gap is bridged by understanding that all oughts relate to the fact that humans value wellbeing – we inexorably derive an ought from an is because nature, the physiology of the brain, compels us so. Whether your belief the ought is right or wrong morally speaking is a separate issue. Therefore, there is only one axiomatic and inexorable single is-ought:

[is statement:] One can not help but act on the desire they believe will bring the most pleasure and the least pain (one values wellbeing) therefore,
[ought statement:] One ought to know if such a belief will bring the most pleasure and least pain is right or wrong

Isn't this just hedonism? Human beings are a collective, the maxim applies to all; we value wellbeing. Studies in Positive Psychology tell us that we may derive more pleasure when we consider the wellbeing of others, possibly because of empathy born of the reasoning that others are the same as me. Is this not utilitarianism? Because the masses may hold erroneous beliefs about what will actually give themselves and others the most wellbeing (slavery, circumcision, burning witches, etc.) In some circumstances treating the individual as an end, the rights of the individual, may end up being the better path to wellbeing for all. Which brings us to bridging the subjective-objective gap and our second premise:

What is it about a moral claim that makes it different to any other?

If I told you that placing crystals on your head was better for relieving the pain of your headache than paracetamol would you accept it? It wasn’t so long ago you might have heard a parent say, “It’s immoral not to spank your children, if you don’t they will grow up to be a menace to themselves and society!” This is a moral claim. Is it subjective or objective? Such a claim can be investigated like any other using empirical methods. It turns out, after numerous scientific studies and decades of research, corporal punishment in the home is a terrible detriment to the wellbeing of a child and has largely only a negative affect on their future. Such a moral claim can be debunked, objectively debunked.

What about the case of four men lost at sea who have to make a decision on who will be killed first so that the others may live? (R v Dudley and Stephens, 1884) A strict objectivist may argue there is always a right and wrong answer but for must of us I think we can agree such a situation is highly subjective. It draws on the conflict of Kant’s categorical imperative, the rights of the individual, and utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number.

In short therefore I am making the claim that whether ethics is subjective or objective depends on circumstance. There is a spectrum on the bridge with subjectivity and objectivity lying at either end. Moral claims and behaviour require as much empiricism as they do reason and sometimes the answer as to whether they are justified will be a fact as clear as day, and sometimes it will be grey and relative.

Whatever way you come at it, the simple fact is this: humans value wellbeing. Working together, and getting our beliefs correct about how to achieve the greatest wellbeing for all, is the grand project of morality.

Thoughts?