The Age Old Debate continues - Can you get an Ought from an Is?

The question of whether you can derive an "ought" from an "is" is a classic philosophical challenge famously articulated by David Hume in the 18th century, often called "Hume's Guillotine." Hume argued that there's a logical gap between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). In other words, just because we can observe the way things are, it doesn't logically follow that they should be that way or that we have an obligation to act accordingly.

This gap raises questions about whether moral or ethical prescriptions can be grounded purely in empirical facts. For example, observing that people help others (an "is") doesn’t directly tell us that they ought to do so. Bridging the gap would require additional premises—like the value that helping others is good—which aren’t purely factual but normative.

However, some philosophers have argued it’s possible to derive “oughts” by grounding them in human nature or certain fundamental goals (like well-being or flourishing). This is the basis of virtue ethics or utilitarianism, where certain "is" statements (such as facts about human welfare) help shape moral principles.

The debate persists because it strikes at the heart of how we justify ethical principles: whether we can base them solely on objective, factual observations or if they require some independent moral or value-based foundation.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OCI Object Storage: Copy Objects Across Tenancies Within a Region

Religious Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: My views

How MSPs Can Deliver IT-as-a-Service with Better Governance