An ought can be gotten from an is. — Bert Newton
It draws on the conflict of Kant’s categorical imperative, the rights of the individual, and utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. — Bert Newton
I think he’s equating deontological ethics with individual rights, and equating utilitarianism with the greatest good. — Pfhorrest
I don’t think he’s trying to fit them all together, but rather pairing individual rights with Kant (the CI), and greatest good with Mill (utilitarianism). And I think saying he’s got some bridge between those two “sides”: the Kant/rights side and the Mill/greatest-good side. — Pfhorrest
In principle, but not without support. Hume said so himself — Mww
Meh, this is basically epiphenomenalism. — SophistiCat
we can get an ought from your belief about what is. — Bert Newton
Why ought you do anything? — Bert Newton
All oughts can be reduced to the belief they will lead to wellbeing. — Bert Newton
We ought to find the best ways to be. This means checking our beliefs. — Bert Newton
There is only one ought: you ought to do what gives you and others the most wellbeing. — Bert Newton
But for me, general conduct is governed by judicial code, in which the “only one ought” is simply ought to obey the law, whereas in moral conduct, there are no oughts at all. There is only and ever.....will this according to that obligation......oughts derived therefrom being irrelevant. — Mww
I also think some ground for a strictly moral conduct, is missing. — Mww
[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 — Bert Newton
Because we value wellbeing — Bert Newton
Yes. There are two "Oughts", the subjective conscience of each person, and the objective "Shoulds" of their community standards. Ancient divine Moral Law was essentially a formalization of traditional communal Ethics. :smile:In short therefore I am making the claim that whether ethics is subjective or objective depends on circumstance. — Bert Newton
True. But only God's universal laws would be completely Objective & unbiased. So "community standards", such as those of empirical Science, are as close to objectively ethical as we can get. In effect, via the statistical effect of "The Wisdom of Crowds", impersonal collective standards tend to average out the various subjective biases of each citizen of a given culture. :smile:↪Gnomon
Community standards aren’t objective. Otherwise they would be universally applied. — Pinprick
To be moral is to be true to one’s self, the effects be what they may. — Mww
The fact is: humans value wellbeing. Working together, getting our beliefs about that correct, is the grand project of morality. — Bert Newton
This seems like a meaningless formulation to me. — Janus
As I see it morality is concerned with how we ought to behave in relation to the impact we think our behavior will have on others. — Janus
So I should act according to what won’t piss you off (or will please you), rather than doing what I think best? — Mww
the point is merely that morality involves caring about how my actions affect others. — Janus
The basic thing is that you have to care. — Janus
There are no certain rules which cover all cases — Janus
The basic thing is that you have to care.....(...).....the point is merely that morality involves caring about how my actions affect others. — Janus
Not necessarily. It doesn’t have to. It can be primarily concerned with how my actions affect me. If the broad goal of ethics is to live the good life, then assessing how one’s actions affect oneself is perfectly reasonable. — Pinprick
Still.....you know.....awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions involved in moral philosophy. Nature of the apparently rational, thus ultimately subjective, human beast, I guess. — Mww
Still....metaphysics of the normative human condition on the one hand, psychology of the deranged human condition on the other. Not sure how much they should overlap. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.