Facts say what 'is. Values say what 'ought' to be. Can we ever derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?

Question

if your answer is 'no', then how are we to decide issues of morality? if no facts can be used to establish morality can there be absolute moral rules, or are all moral decisions relative- dependent upon particular circumstances, feeling, or desires?

Answer 1

You (might be) and others here are sincerely and possibly
mistaken when or if you think that just "values" are what
is sometimes thought-of as "ought-to-be.
What i (and others) mean is that its not just values that might
show us what to do in the future.
Nearly every one of us have had a Darwin-ist education,
and this means that we all have "neo" or moderate plans
and even "inhibitions" concerning the future.
This might (but does not definitively have-to)be in just one's
attitude and "open-ness " towards others;even others,say,
who could be (American) republicans or just more likely to
be loud-and-threatening.
We all come with,what may be called preconceived thoughts and ideas-and not necessarily darwinian ones either.
These existing,wired-in ideas,may Not just be "moral values";
they could be past experiences(and co-incidental) or even
facts that we have learned.
Just one of these facts concerns politics(stay with me!)-
in that most of us have somehow "learned" that,in a mass
majority election or selection,the best candidate always wins.
That is not true,( and its a mistake to think so).
We we learn from and of a future-a "small"and rather "closed" future, not only from likewise other "facts" but
from hard facts such as, Wars are either won or lost-there
are no "ties" or even "draws" there.
Similarly,values are separated and then "selected"; most
of us know for sure that the average ideal family size here
is approximately 2.4 children!Yet in the individual and
countless towns and citiesthis will not be so(say,if we take
the towns as opposed to cities).
Some will say this is just a math-method,not a real figure of
reality; but they would be again mistaken- its real alright,
real now and when or if it changes,it will be (a part of) the
real history of our time.
So,our desire may be to deny all this;this desire can be
resisted-not as easily as so-called facts can be,i'll accept
that-although denial or even total acceptance does not mean
(and never did mean) that we could change-our-minds next
week,or next day and "get away" with the truth; But as ive
tried to argue,our desires can even change-the-facts.
If this happens, the facts do change,and change relative-to
the-truth as well(!)

Answer 2

Deriving an "ought" from an "is" with no other support commits the naturalistic fallacy. We can do it, but it wouldn't necessarily be right and true.

Human beings have been blessed with something called imagination and creativity. I can conceive of a unicorn but that doesn't mean that a unicorn now, or ever did, exist. That relates to your question of morality insofar as we can *imagine* or consider various "oughts" on their own, whether or not each of them actually "is," and then construct arguments supporting or refuting those "oughts" of which we conceived.

Finally, there are examples of contingent ethics, but all of ethics is not relative. The primary conditions of relativism involve the agent committing x-act, the agent thinking that act is ethical, and that agent feeling no remorse or regret in committing the act. According to this act, Hitler behaved ethically. Is that really something we are prepared to accept?

Answer 3

We can't deny the fact that there s "opinion" which by itself is a questionable preposition. But "ought to" in a genetic code my represent something that we know intuitevely, and try to find materially. "Is" on the hand might be good or bad. Depending on an opinion:)

Answer 4

"A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every "is" implies an "ought." Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history." [Ayn Rand]

Answer 5

I'm on the more absolute side of relativism. I believe that there are situations where something that is wrong can be right, but for the most part it is wrong. I think the only "is" is the way it makes people feel. We can say that something that you don't want done to you and that you do to someone else, is wrong.

Answer 6

Bhudda told us " All is as it should be." You could also state that as " What ought to be is."

Answer 7

its like the "golden rule"
everythings screwed up, and there is no truth.
not even this one