What Do You think of this argument regarding is and ought?

Question

1) Every substance that promotes human well-being is a good.

2) Water is a substance that promotes human well-being.

3) Water is a good.

4) Therefore, one ought to drink water.

Angel,

It is a common supposiiton that everyone needs water to live. However, that assumption could be questioned by a strict empiricist or idealist such as David Hume or George Berkeley. My point is that it seems one cannot logically transition from a facot to a value or an is to an ought. then again, maybe one can transition from an is to an ought. That is why I raised this issue.

Charlie and John, your comments are very helpful. My goal is to move from an is to an ought without committing a logical fallacy or producing an unsound argument.

Lovely, I hope you now see where I am going with this line of argumentation. But what does my age have to do with anything?

Answer 1

The proof is sort of sound, in that I understand your thinking that the first two premises logically lead to the conclusion you reach in step 3. That said, if you have any control over determining which premises you use, I think you can make a stronger case.

Water doesn't simply promote human well-being; rather, it is a *necessity* for human life. That would be like saying that oxygen promotes human well-being -- at best it's not specific enough; at worst it's simply inaccurate. If you were to substitute a word like "exercise" or "vitamins" for "water" in your syllogism, you'd at least be more accurate.

Alternatively, if you really want to make an argument suggesting people ought to drink water, you could change the predicate of your first two premises to be more accurate....say, something like:
1. Every action necessary to sustain human life is a good.
2. Drinking water is necessary to sustain human life.
3. Therefore, drinking water is a good.
4. Thus: One ought to drink water.

Answer 2

Ah, a comedian? In philosophy, there's the "is/ought" fallacy. This was first noted by David Hume. It was Hume's observation that one cannot argue from "how the world currently is" and then argue from that which "is" to that which "ought" to be (that is, insert an "ought" into the conclusion.)

To give an example, one could describe an act of courage, and then conclude that this is how people ought to act. That's an example of an is/ought fallacy. (Note: the person is not actually providing substantive reasons for why one should act courageously under circumstances X; the arguer is simply describing a situation "as is." To make the problem more obvious -- suppose one lives in a constant state of war, should then one conclude: "this is the way people *should* behave -- that is, live in a constant state of war?" Of course not -- that which is cannot be used as a moral guide.)

To return to your alleged "is/ought" arguement. Statement 4 is not truly an "ought" (not a moral) statement. You're using the term "ought" ambiguously. With a true "is/ought" fallacy, the "ought" refers to a moral obligation, a moral duty (as in, "one ought to tell the truth"). Clearly, drinking water is not a moral obligation. The term "ought" can also be used in the sense of doing that which is "appropriate." Thus, one "ought" to let the cat out, when it meows. Or "one ought to drink water." Drinking water or letting the cat out may be appropriate things to do, but they're not morally obligatory.

Answer 3

(the basis premise about water is wrong - it nourishes it does not support well-being)

and the act of drinking would have to be in 2. , 3. and 4. not just water for the statement to be valid

1. Things that nourish the body are good for people.
2. Drinking water nourishes the body.
3. Drinking water is good for people.

This is a basic statement of logical conclusion.

Answer 4

Your first sentence says " every substance ......" and it does not specify ONLY water. Water is one of such substances.

So, in 4) the word Ought is not exactly correct. Ought would would have been appropriate ONLY if waterwas the only substance

Answer 5

Well I full and rationally agree with all the 'is'.
And truly one needs to drink water or stuff containing water to sustain one's well being, so it is more than an 'ought'.

I give you another line of reasoning which is ofcourse flawed:

1) Nothing is better than a Rolls-Royce
2) A bicycle is better than nothing
3) A bicycle ought to be better than a Rolls-Royce

Answer 6

2) gasoline promotes human well-being
3) gasoline is a good
4) therefore, one ought to drink gasoline.

Obviously, you're statements have truth to them, the only problem is clarifying "what to do" with the good. Yes, you can drink water, but that doesn't mean you can drink every "good."

Answer 7

3 and 4 are logical statements.

1 and 2 need to be proven for the argument to work for me. I personally don't accept either as written.

Answer 8

If you want a philosophy based on the words ought and is, use a dictionary, they are 2 distinct words, 1 states things as they are, the other as they should be.

Answer 9

Everyone needs water to live. So what is your question or point?

Answer 10

I'm wondering what your point is? And how old are you? It depends on how and when you use water, as to whether it is good or not. There are times it is bad...like when something should remain dry. As in surgery, dentisty, etc....