for the rational nature of man is the only conceivable foundation for a rational system of ethics — tim wood

How can this be true if you cannot derive an ought from an is. It seems that the word "moderate" would fit better than rational in this case (moderate as in not extremist on moral issues or indecisive)

How can this be true if you cannot derive an ought from an is. I — khaled

Mortimer Adler was one who dissolved this problem. As stated, you cannot get an ought from an is. Try this: If X is what you want, then you ought to do Y.

Moderation is good in all things (except maybe moderation - you can work that out). But moderation is essentially reasonable which is to say rational, yes? Is the irrational man, the unreasonable man, moderate? And is the extremist or the indecisive man rational?

so if it just so happens that I want to slaughter humans then I am perfectly morally justified in doing so/I should do so? Also

If X is what you want, then you ought to do Y. — tim wood

Still does not follow. Ex:
Eating 200 kgs of cake is what I want. I ought to eat 200 kgs of cake

Killing humans is what I want (I don't). I ought to kill humans

Moderation is good in all things — tim wood

This is an unproven premise. It's taken to be true. I could take something else to be true

Don't be silly!

And

Moderation is good in all things
— tim wood
This is an unproven premise. — khaled

Ethics/morals is not an exercise in logic. And you could take anything you want to be true, as true. The test isn't in what you take, it's in the reason, rationality, of the taking.

why is it silly? As far as I can see this guy grounds morality in human wants and needs and so if everyone wanted to kill X then they should kill X

You do understand that in the formula x = 3y, that x and y are variables, yes?

To say "If X is what you want then you ought to do Y, is just an exercise in a form, without any particular meaning attaching to the variables. I suppose that, if you want to do some horrible act, then to accomplish that horrible act, if Y is required, then you ought to do Y, is a reasonable expression; but it has nothing to do with moral/ethical reason or reasoning. You have merely not understood the form or its purpose, which was to show that you can get an ought from an is.

I get the form now. I just don't understand why getting an ought from a want never occurred to anyone. I'ma do some thinking and research now if you don't mind

no I still think it's a semantic shift. The "ought" you cannot obtain from an is is an objective moral ought such as "one ought not to kill" however the ought being obtained here is not moral but more so procedural. Ex:

I want to wake up early. I ought to set an alarm.

In this case the whole statement can be rephrased "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early"

Children suffer when not vaccinated. Parents should vaccinate their children

In this case "Parents should vaccinate their children in order for them not to suffer" is a valid restatement but that doesn't translate to "parents should vaccinate their children". In the same way "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early" doesn't translate to "I ought to set an alarm". It seems to me like this formula hides the problem rather than solves it

I don't know if this example is really good. I'll try to elaborate if I find a better one

The difference is in the desire: "waking up early" vs. "children not suffering". You may desire to wake up at a certain hour for any number of reasons, none of which need to contain a moral aspect; desiring that children not suffer, on the other hand, is more narrow, and is harder to divorce from a moral aspect.

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children.

Translates to: I should vaccinate my children in order to prevent their suffering

However that does not translate to: I should vaccinate my children
The first should is procedural the second is moral. It is a semantic shift as far as I can see

But here:

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children. — khaled

The first should is moral, and the second is procedural.

no the should in

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children. — khaled

Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake"

My point is that the only thing this formula can derive is procedural shoulds. It cannot derive the moral should that is meant in the sentence "you cannot derive an ought from an is"

Procedural: You should X because Y requries X
Moral: You should do X because it is morally correct

So in this case it is "I should vaccinate they children to satisfy my want of protecting them" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct"

Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake" — khaled

It's not the same; the desire to eat cake is not the same as the desire for children not to suffer. Your entire conception of the "procedural vs. moral" here precludes the existence of the moral. To want to eat cake is by nature a personal pleasure, since there's no inherent health benefits to eating cake. The only other benefits are marginally social; it's a birthday party, and so, by eating cake, I partake in the social scene, and I feel a part of that scene, and there are moral implications to wanting to be part of the social situation. But if I'm alone and have a desire to eat cake, I can do that, but there's no moral implications. On the other hand, the desire that my children not suffer is patently different, and not "procedural" in the same way. Desiring that my children not suffer is a desire for their own well-being, which introduces the moral. "Wanting to eat cake" is personal, but "not wanting my children to suffer" is transpersonal.

What if "I want to eat kale"?

No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"

That still translates to:

"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being"

What is being cited as the reason for the should here? Procedure. Wish fulfillment. That's all this formula proves. It doesn't prove that any action is moral irrespective of desire

If the desired should is procedural as defined in my last comment then you CAN obtain a should from an is anyways so there is no need for this formulation
"Vaccinations are necessary for parents to protect children"

translates to:

"It is the case that if a parent wants to protect their children they should (procedural) vaccinate them"

"This parent wants to protect their children"

"It is the case that this parent should vaccinate their children"

No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"

That still translates to:

"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being" — khaled

But why does it always "translate" to the procedural being first? In what way is it first? What does "translate" mean here? Translate literally? Figuratively? If figurative, can you show how a figurative (poetic) use of the word translate is logically sound? What?

translates as is tautologically. The two sentences:
"My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children."

And "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer"

Are exactly the same same don't you agree?

I do agree; the fault in your argument is that you take one, and then say it translates to the other, while admitting that the use of "translates to" is a tautology.

well if it's a tautology it doesn't matter which one I decide to use right?
It's like using x=3 vs 2x=6

My point is that in both cases oughts are getting tied to wants and not to morality

No, if it's a tautology, it's wrong. That's why your argument is wrong.

here is an example:

I want to kill an innocent person(I don't). I ought to kill an innocent person

In this case we can both agree that the ought is procedural right?

I don't care about whether it's viewed by someone or other as procedural, because I know, morally, that it's wrong. See how that works? The "procedural" comes after the moral.

no I don't see how that works at all. So wouldn't this formulation be useless for finding moral truths then?

Yes. :joke:

ok replace "should" with "must be done in order to complete the task of:" and the formulation still makes sense. It's not deriving shoulds so much as it's deriving hows

I got bambuzzled

How does any of that relate to the moral? At what point do you, personally, feel comfortable introducing the "moral"? What grounds are sufficient for you to introduce the "moral"?

personally, self evidence. Morality has to be a premise no one can disagree with (Note: no one CAN disagree with not no one DOES) which is why I don't think an objective one exists. I'm more of a contractarian. I believe morality (as most people use the word) is a contract between people that helped them survive and consequently there are many possible ways to do that

"Self-evidence" (what is that?) and a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES disagree with seem contradictory.

something that cannot be false/can verify itself.
Ex: I am Conscious.
There is no way for this to be false. I can't be having an "illusion" of consciousness for that would require a conscious observer to have the illusion.
And yeah that's the only one I found

Note: I could be lying about my Consciousness and be a zombie but the point is that IF I am truly Conscious, there is no way for me to deny it. Morality has to be something like that, it has to derive from something undeniable for it to he truly objective

Why is Can vs does contradictory?

Why is Can vs does contradictory? — khaled

No, I meant "self-evidence" (your usage) is contradictory with the idea that a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES (your usage) disagree with is contradictory.