The Is / Ought Problem

Do you draw conclusions from how things are to think about how things should be? There might be a gap in your reasoning. Read by Harry Shearer. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.

This project was possible in partnership with The Open University and the animations were created by Cognitive.

[Iad]

Thanks Principle Skinner, you helped clear that up for me.

[BenTheHenAgain]

This video confuses an appeal to nature with the naturalistic fallacy and secondly the naturalistic fallacy with Hume's is ought distinction, they are all quite distinct alleged fallacies, though of-course closely related.

If one actually reads Hume's passage in which his is/ought distinction appears, it's quite clear, despite what many philosophers believe, that Hume does not argue that one cannot get from is to ought, he was merely asking for an explicit explanation how to gap is to traversed. The argument was aimed at rationalistic philosophers whom he thought didn't and couldn't provide such an explanation. Furthermore, Hume set himself the task of providing a theory which makes the connection between facts and values explicit, his and Adam Smith's science of morality, that unequivocally grounded moral value in facts about human nature. It was Smith's work on morality which Darwin eventually consulted when addressing the evolution of the moral sense.

None of these facts make any sense if you take the common interpretation that Hume thought there was an unbridgeable gap between is and ought and that gap's supposed negative implications for a simultaneously evolutionary and normative moral theory. Somehow, despite the obvious refutations, only some of which I've mentioned, the common interpretation of Hume persists. It seems to be a sort of myth that philosophers in droves pander to without questioning, I find this situation quite bizarre.
 

[ÖzgürAkıncı]

Would be nice to see that drawings as a poster on my wall.

[johnscallon]

This is very well done. Excellent work.

[albozkilla]

It's pretty simple it seems, Hume is correct in saying do whatever makes you happy, if eating meat makes you physically feel worse or makes you sad, don't eat it. One's values and judgements ought to be based in reality if one would like to live happily.
There are still moral values that must go into the volitional judgements made everyday. That means no forceful interruption in other people's rights.

If you actually use the facts and find out which diet is healthier for YOU you won't have to worry about this "Conundrum"

[MoleDownunder]

Such an old fallacy yet its still in peoples thinking.

[nikolabrook]

The recognition of the inability to find an ought, a true right and wrong, leads to a kind of surface level moral Nihilism, Right?

[thejas]

Please do more insightful videos like this.

[blankpage]

Anyone interested in this gap should read marcletyre's book, after virtue, in which he explains the main reason why this gap occurs is the elimination of the aristotelian telos by the culture clean rationalisation of the age of enlightenment.

[thenaztika]

Listened 3-4 times ... still taking time to understand the last 40 seconds 😅

[tomboz]

I for one welcome our new Hume Overlord.

[richardalvis]

Its all correct. We evolved. Teeth in the front for cutting and tearing flesh. Molars for grinding. Omnivores. Intelligences are also evolving. Vegetarian? So be it. Everyone is right. The gap is choice and letting others choose themselves. Everone is right.

[thehauntedstream]

Morality only concerns subjects, objective morality is like a 3 sided square

[KyleClements]

How can we ever get to an is without going through a number of oughts?

We ought to value logic.
We ought to value reason.
We ought to value evidence.
We ought to value non-contradiction.
We ought to value parsimony.

[wingsoffreedom]

In other words the nail in the coffin for objective morality.

[christopherkanas]

The bigger question is who determines the "ought" and why is their opinion any more valid than another person's perception of "ought"

[annac]

I don't understand how Hume is a naturalist if he doesn't believe that morality is inherent in what we do? If I'm confused with what a naturalist consists of please correct me

[DommHavai]

I shouldn't fix the door lock, because it's broken. And that's the way it is and ought to be.

[utilitymonster]

Just because the video gives an incorrect example of how to derive an ought from a fact — indeed, merely because we evolved to eat meat doesn’t mean we ought to eat it — it doesn’t mean that you can never derive ought from an is.

For example: if you want to be healthy, and eating healthy is necessary to be healthy, then you should eat healthy. And, you do want to be healthy, since healthy is necessary for being happy, and by definition you want to be happy. So: we ought to eat healthy. That doesn’t mean we always do, since we have emotional impulses that aren’t rational, making us eat unhealthy foods as well.

[lllorenz]

"Nature impales men, breaks them as if on the wheel, casts them to be devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes them with stones like the first Christian martyr, starves them with hunger, freezes them with cold, poisons them by the quick or slow venom of her exhalations, and has hundreds of other hideous deaths in reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a Nabis or a Domitian never surpassed. All this Nature does with the most supercilious disregard both of mercy and of justice, emptying her shafts upon the best and noblest indifferently with the meanest and worst; upon those who are engaged in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct consequence of the noblest acts; and it might almost be imagined as a punishment for them." J.S. Mill "On Nature".