The Is / Ought Problem

Summary

The 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.