Difference between revisions of "Denial of the is/ought gap"

From arguably.io
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
'''There is no is/ought problem''' is a claim made by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris 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 [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ moral realism], which holds that certain moral claims are grounded in fact and, like facts, can be said to be true or false.
'''Denial of the is/ought gap''' is a key element to certain metaethical positions, namely moral objectivism and moral realism. These denials can take many forms. Some moral objectivists invoke a supernatural being to universalize their values, whilst moral realists collapse the boundary by attempting to show that at least some values are embedded in facts.


====The Claim====
==Moral Realist Denials==
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. <ref>[https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/951276346529009665 Getting from “Is” to “Ought”]</ref>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris Sam Harris] denies the is/ought gap by claiming that the facts of human suffering directly lead us to value well-being. There are values which arise naturally in the course of conscious existence, such as the value of not wanting to be burned after one has touched a hot stove and discovered firsthand the pain of burning. <ref>[https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/951276346529009665 Getting from “Is” to “Ought”]</ref>


In this construal, the statement that “touching a hot stove is good” is an immoral proposition.
In this construal, the statement that “touching a hot stove is good” is an immoral proposition.
Line 8: Line 8:
In ''The Moral Landscape'', Harris writes:
In ''The Moral Landscape'', Harris writes:
<blockquote>“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)<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X The Moral Landscape]</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>“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)<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X The Moral Landscape]</ref></blockquote>
==Moral Objectivist Denials==


{{Claim
{{Claim
|Claim=There is no is/ought problem
|Claim=There is no is/ought problem
|Level=Ethical preference
|Level=Not Proven
|Nature=Factual/ethical
|Nature=Factual/ethical
|Counterclaim=The is/ought problem
|Counterclaim=The is/ought problem

Revision as of 18:38, 23 January 2022

Denial of the is/ought gap is a key element to certain metaethical positions, namely moral objectivism and moral realism. These denials can take many forms. Some moral objectivists invoke a supernatural being to universalize their values, whilst moral realists collapse the boundary by attempting to show that at least some values are embedded in facts.

Moral Realist Denials

Sam Harris denies the is/ought gap by claiming that the facts of human suffering directly lead us to value well-being. There are values which arise naturally in the course of conscious existence, such as the value of not wanting to be burned after one has touched a hot stove and discovered firsthand the pain of burning. [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]

Moral Objectivist Denials

Claim
Statement of the claim There is no is/ought problem
Level of certainty Not Proven
Nature Factual/ethical
Counterclaim The is/ought problem
Dependent on


Dependency of


Notes

  1. ↑ Getting from “Is” to “Ought”
  2. ↑ The Moral Landscape
Retrieved from "https://arguably.io/index.php?title=Denial_of_the_is/ought_gap&oldid=450"