The Is / Ought Problem

BBC Radio 4

18 Nov 201401:29

Summary

TLDRThe video script discusses a common argument style where people derive 'ought' from 'is', using facts about the world to conclude how things should be, exemplified by the claim that humans should eat meat because we evolved as meat-eaters. However, David Hume criticized this reasoning, asserting a gap between facts and values, known as 'Hume's Law' or 'Hume's Guillotine'. Despite the challenge, many have attempted to bridge this gap, arguing from natural facts to moral values. The script questions the validity of these arguments, suggesting a logical fallacy if Hume's perspective is correct.

Takeaways

📚 The script discusses a common style of argument where people derive 'ought' from 'is', using facts about the world to draw conclusions about how things should be.
🍖 It uses the example of meat-eating, suggesting that because humans evolved as meat-eating animals, they ought to eat meat, to illustrate this argument style.
🤔 David Hume critiqued this reasoning, arguing that there's a gap between 'is' (observations of facts) and 'ought' (judgments about values), known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine.
✂️ Hume's argument severs the direct connection between facts and values, implying that moving from one to the other is a logical mistake.
🧐 The script points out an implied assumption in the meat-eating argument: that we ought to do whatever we evolved to do, which is a controversial moral premise.
🌱 Vegetarians would dispute this premise, showing that the 'ought' derived from 'is' can be challenged on moral grounds.
🕊️ Since Hume's time, many moralists have attempted to bridge the 'is-ought' gap, trying to connect natural facts with moral values.
🤓 They argue from what is natural or unnatural to what we should or shouldn't do, or from what makes humans happy to evaluations of what we should do next.
🧬 Some also attempt to link human biology with claims about how we ought to live, suggesting a connection between biological facts and moral values.
🚫 If Hume is correct, all these attempts to bridge the gap commit a logical error by trying to derive values from facts.
💭 The script raises the question of whether it's reasonable to argue from 'is' to 'ought' and highlights the ongoing debate in moral philosophy.

Q & A

What is the main argument style discussed in the transcript?
-The main argument style discussed is deriving what should be done from facts about the world, often used to draw conclusions about values based on observations of facts.
What example is given to illustrate this argument style?
-The example given is that since humans evolved as meat-eating animals, it is argued that we ought to eat meat.
Who is David Hume, and what is his view on this argument style?
-David Hume is an 18th-century philosopher who believed that this argument style is flawed, as it moves too quickly from facts to values without proper reasoning.
What is the term used to describe the gap between facts and values in Hume's philosophy?
-The gap is referred to as 'Hume's Law' or 'Hume's Guillotine,' which severs the direct connection between facts and values.
What is the implied assumption in the meat-eating example that Hume points out?
-The implied assumption is that we ought to do whatever we evolved to do, which is a controversial moral premise that can be disputed.
How have moralists tried to address the gap identified by Hume?
-Moralists have tried to bridge the gap by arguing from what is natural or unnatural to what we should or shouldn't do, or from what makes humans happy to evaluations of what we should do.
What does Hume's philosophy suggest about the logical consistency of these moralist arguments?
-According to Hume, if his philosophy is correct, all these attempts to bridge the gap have committed a logical mistake.
What is the significance of the term 'Hume's Guillotine' in the context of this discussion?
-The term 'Hume's Guillotine' signifies the sharp and decisive severing of the logical connection between 'is' (facts) and 'ought' (values) in moral reasoning.
How does the transcript suggest that people often make a mistake in moral reasoning?
-The transcript suggests that people often make a mistake by not recognizing the gap between 'is' and 'ought' and by assuming a direct connection where there is none.
What is the broader philosophical issue raised by the transcript?
-The broader issue is the problem of deriving an 'ought' from an 'is,' which is a central concern in meta-ethics and the philosophy of language.
How might vegetarians respond to the meat-eating argument based on evolution?
-Vegetarians might dispute the argument by challenging the moral premise that we ought to do whatever we evolved to do, suggesting that moral considerations can override evolutionary tendencies.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Issue of Deriving Ought from Is

This paragraph discusses the philosophical debate on whether one can derive moral 'oughts' from factual 'is'. It uses the example of meat-eating, suggesting that because humans evolved as meat-eaters, it is implied that they should continue to eat meat. However, the paragraph points out the logical flaw in this argument, as identified by philosopher David Hume. Hume argued that there is a gap between 'is' and 'ought', which is often overlooked. This gap is known as 'Hume's Law' or 'Hume's Guillotine', and it challenges the direct connection between facts and values. The paragraph also mentions that since Hume's time, various moralists have attempted to bridge this gap, arguing from natural facts to moral values, but the paragraph implies that if Hume is correct, these attempts may be based on a logical mistake.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Derive

To 'derive' means to obtain or deduce something by reasoning or deduction from known facts or premises. In the context of the video, deriving actions from facts refers to the process of using observations about the world to infer what should be done, which is a central argument being critiqued.

💡Facts about the world

Facts about the world refer to objective realities or truths that can be observed and verified. In the video, these facts are used as a basis for arguments about what ought to be done, such as the example of our evolutionary history as meat-eating animals.

💡Argument

An 'argument' is a set of statements intended to establish a proposition by reasoning. In the video, the argument style discussed uses factual observations to draw conclusions about values or what should be done.

💡David Hume

David Hume was an 18th-century philosopher known for his skepticism and empiricism. The video discusses his critique of the 'is-ought' problem, where he argued that there is a logical gap between factual observations and value judgments.

💡Is-Ought Problem

The 'is-ought' problem, also known as Hume's Law, refers to the difficulty of deriving an evaluative conclusion ('ought') from purely factual premises ('is'). The video script highlights this as a key issue in the argument style being discussed.

💡Hume's Guillotine

Hume's Guillotine is a metaphorical term used to describe the separation of facts from values as proposed by Hume. It suggests that there is a clear and unbridgeable gap between what is and what ought to be, which is a central point in the video's discussion.

💡Moral Premise

A 'moral premise' is a foundational belief or assumption that underlies a moral argument. In the script, the video points out that an unstated moral premise, such as 'we ought to do whatever we evolve to do,' is often assumed but is actually a matter of dispute.

💡Vegetarians

Vegetarians are individuals who abstain from consuming meat, often for health, ethical, or environmental reasons. The video uses vegetarians as an example of those who would dispute the moral premise implied in the argument from evolution to dietary habits.

💡Natural

The term 'natural' in the video refers to what is found in nature or what is typical of the course of nature. It is used in the context of arguments that attempt to bridge the 'is-ought' gap by suggesting that what is natural should guide what we should do.

💡Unnatural

'Unnatural' is used in contrast to 'natural' and refers to something that is not in accordance with what is typical of the course of nature. The video discusses how people argue from what is considered unnatural to what we should or should not do.

💡Human Biology

Human biology refers to the study of the human body and its functions. In the video, it is mentioned as a source of facts that some people use to make claims about how we ought to live, another example of attempting to bridge the 'is-ought' gap.

💡Logical Mistake

A 'logical mistake' is an error in reasoning that leads to a fallacious argument. The video suggests that attempts to bridge the 'is-ought' gap by moving from facts to values commit a logical mistake, according to Hume's philosophy.

Highlights

The argument style discussed involves deriving 'ought' from 'is', using facts about the world to draw conclusions about how things should be.

An example given is the evolutionary basis for meat-eating, suggesting we ought to eat meat.

David Hume's critique of this argument style, arguing that there's a gap between observations of facts and judgments about values.

Hume's view that people move too readily from 'is' to 'ought', indicating a logical flaw.

Introduction of 'Hume's law' or 'Hume's Guillotine', which severs the direct connection between facts and values.

The implied assumption in the meat-eating example that we ought to do whatever we evolve to do, which is a controversial moral premise.

Vegetarians' dispute of the evolutionary premise for meat-eating, highlighting differing moral stances.

Since Hume's time, numerous moralists have attempted to bridge the 'is-ought' gap.

Attempts to argue from natural or unnatural phenomena to what we should or shouldn't do.

Moralists' arguments from what makes humans happy to evaluations of what we should do.

Claims about how we ought to live based on discoveries about human biology.

If Hume is correct, all attempts to bridge the gap commit a logical mistake.

The transcript explores the logical disconnect between factual observations and moral values.

The philosophical debate on deriving moral obligations from empirical observations.

The transcript challenges the validity of arguments that equate natural tendencies with moral imperatives.

The importance of distinguishing between descriptive statements ('is') and prescriptive statements ('ought').

The need for a deeper analysis of the logical structure of arguments that attempt to derive values from facts.

The potential implications of Hume's critique for ethical theories and moral reasoning.

The transcript's contribution to the understanding of the relationship between facts and values in moral philosophy.