Denial of the is/ought gap
There is no is/ought problem is a claim made by Sam Harris, which is essential to his broader claim that a moral system is one that maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures. In the field of metaethics, this places Harris within the realm of moral realism, which holds that certain moral claims are grounded in fact and, like facts, can be said to be true or false.
The Claim
Values often depend on facts and arise naturally in the course of conscious existence. Human beings who have suffered in some way, as for example a child who touches a hot stove, will automatically value his or her well-being over the pain of burning. In this way, we’ve derived an ought from an is. If not for the facts of biology, e.g., pain receptors in the skin that pass the message of ‘burning’ to the brain, there would be no need to value well-being. [1]
In this construal, the statement that “touching a hot stove is good” is an immoral proposition.
In The Moral Landscape, Harris writes:
“I am simply saying that, given that there are facts—real facts—to be known about how conscious creatures can experience the worst possible misery and the greatest possible well-being, it is objectively true to say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, whether or not we can always answer these questions in practice.” (2010, p. 30)[2]
| Statement of the claim | There is no is/ought problem |
| Level of certainty | Ethical preference |
| Nature | Ethical |
| Counterclaim | The is/ought problem |
| Dependent on |
|
| Dependency of |
|