We had a great time at our December Think & Drink. And the topic fo the eve: the good ol’ is-ought conundrum. What is that? An ‘is’ has to do with facts about/things in the world. It is descriptive in nature. An ‘ought’ has to do with normative claims. It describes what we should do.
According to David Hume, an is-ought fallacy arises when a normative claim (an ought) is derived from a descriptive claim (an is). For example: Just because something is a certain way, does it follow that it ought to be that way? Some say yes. Some say no. Here’s a quick video highlighting the issue (from Hume’s perspective).
The Question We Chose…
-
Can you get an “ought” from an “is”?
Some Things That Came Up in the Course of Our Discussion…
-
Do we derive our morals from our experience in the world, from pure reason, or from somewhere else?
-
How do different cultures come to completely different moral conclusions regarding similar factual circumstances?
-
Our answers to moral questions have changed over time. Does this constitute moral progress? By what criteria could we even answer this question?
-
What is the relationship between power and morals?
-
Are there fundamental moral principles that are consistent across human cultures and through the ages?
Thank you to the Philosophy Learning & Teaching Organization (PLATO) and Montana Internet for supporting philosophy in the community and helping us bring activities like these to the Missoula community!
