The Is-Ought Problem SOLVED by Ayn Rand's Philosophy

An excellent summary of how Ayn Rand's philosophy solves the is-ought problem, or the problem of the fact-value gap.

[beenz]

The problem of deriving an "ought" statement from an "is" seems to be one that Rand fails to address in the context of its time. In addition, though it stems from what appears to be an afterthought in his writings, logically it is an extension or mirror of his master thesis on the problem of induction. This later point does not necessarily detract from the points made in this video, but the connection deserves attention for those inclined to understand what philosophical contributions David Hume added to the discourse.

Staying on point, what philosophers and theologians meant by "objective morality" would have to be something like "self-evident moral premises/axioms." This was envisioned as prescriptions writ into the fabric of reality, like the laws of physics which are true, independent of any human values. This was typically nested in whatever creation myth or higher power was culturally relevant to the thinker addressing the subject of morality. This link was not a casual one either. That morality has this transcendental quality was presumed and baked into the essence of "objective." Physical laws are objective this way. You may argue that human values are the only rational domain to talk about morality, since the supernatural is irrational or poorly evidenced. That is fair, but it must be pointed out that this is changing the nature of the question being asked, and the answer given. It would be no small thing to deliver commandments of the universe itself. The power of this ancient conception of "objective morality, " would be no laughing matter. You could say to someone, "You may no longer value living, your depression, terrible and long as it has been, must be put aside and you are obligated to live."

It is absolutely true that "if" you want to survive you "ought" to do X, Y, and Z. But the moral prescription here is antecedent to a value for continued existence. You might say to such a person mentioned above, "Your mental state and current valuation of continued existence is skewed by brain chemistry that can be changed through psychotherapy or medication. You will in fact miss out on all that life can hold. Once you have moved past this, you will look back and be glad you disregarded your current outlook and decided to press on." None of these tell the person that they "should" do anything however.

Hume posited the is/ought distinction to all those who might have said before him "God(s) have made man such that he prefers X and thrives when he serves that value." Hume can rightfully say, just because god(s) have made us such that we prefer x, does not mean it is wrong to prefer ~x. It is wrong to say that two masses are attracted to each other at a relation of the inverse cube of their distances and masses (inverse square being correct).

Now, after the age of reason, the search for "objective morality" as dictated by something above and external to humans, either mystical or supernatural, loses its appeal as a valid line of inquiry. Rand notes this where she say regarding the is/ought dilemma "To speak of 'value' as apart from 'life' is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” We are left to more earthly concerns. But these concerns are not the same things talked about by philosophers of old, or by apologists today.

This is drawn out in the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Harris makes the case for the well-being of conscious creatures and Craig responds: ""Now Dr. Harris says, 'But we can imagine creatures being in the worst possible misery, and it’s obviously better for creatures to be flourishing—the well-being of conscious creatures is good.' Well, of course, it is. That’s not the question. We agree that, all things being equal, flourishing of conscious creatures is good. The question is rather, if atheism were true, what would make the flourishing of conscious creatures objectively good? Conscious creatures might like to flourish, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively good."

It's clear that Harris doesn't care about anything other than human suffering or flourishing when it comes to questions of what is moral: " Now, if you think the worst possible misery for everyone isn’t bad, or maybe it has a silver lining, or maybe there’s something worse, I don’t know what you’re talking about. And what’s more, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about either."

These two are in a sense talking past each other and in another sense answering different questions.

Rand continues on about how life and its continued existence presupposes the valuation of life as a goal by those who chose to live. You'll see that this contextually aligns nicely with our hypothetical depressed person from before. Rand has nothing to say to the person contemplating their own demise, in terms of moral condemnation.



In the comment section to the second video Cosmic Skeptic points out that Rationality Rules is "...defining 'ought' to make it effectively an amoral term." That is, when compared to ancient conceptions of "morality, " RR changes the subject. Rand does precisely the same. She, and the man who speaks towards the end of this video, focus on what must be true in light of a value for life. If Rand offered a proof that one ought to value life, that this was self-evidently true, she would have actually solved the is/ought problem and upended thousands of years of ethical debate. Rand has no response to the non-cognitivist, except to say "your line of inquiry is doomed from the start. Instead ask this question...." That is not to say this alternate line of inquiry isn't important. However, Rand was hardly the first to start down this alternate line of inquiry. Mill set out to derive a morality that was not grounded in God and therefore changing the subject in similar fashion. Rand's project maybe of greater value for reasons of clarity, content, or simplicity, but she gets no special award for originality when it comes to looking to the human condition itself as a source of morality.

[jmike]

Im sorry. How exactly did you bridge an issue about deductive logic? You can't derive normative assesments from descriptive premises. This didn't get you from descriptive to the normative in any sense.

[ericzarahn]

A problem with the presented idea is that it claims to prove that man's life is the ultimate value while that is a premise of the argument.

[lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

I laughed out loud when I saw the title of this video.

Spoiler alert: Ayn Rand does not solve the problem.

[havenbastion]

A simpler way to say it is that the ought problem is one of contingencies. IF we want certain results THEN certain behaviours do in fact have a better chance of getting us that outcome. The three contingencies for all "spiritual" (non-empirical) questions are salience, perspective, and priority.

[andyknowles]

Nothing has ever neen solved by Ayn Rand's "philosophy".

[rodolfo]

The very phrase "If we chose to live, if we chose to seek anything out of life, than we are going to have to..." Already shows that our morality is conditional to a choice, therefore is not objective in the sense of being independent of our opinions.

Besides, is pretty obvious that we can adotp many different moral values and still go on living and "doing something out of life"

People in teocratic countries are also living and "doing something out of life"