Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Oughts and Is's

Expand Messages
  • Ken Batts
    Steve: I agree with your post. Ought is about desires, needs, and not about anything ultimate . We don t need to claim oughts are anything but pragmatic
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 9 8:18 PM
      Steve: I agree with your post. "Ought" is about desires, needs, and
      not about anything
      "ultimate". We don't need to claim "oughts" are anything but
      pragmatic rules that we
      believe are useful and meet our ideals.

      We need (desire) to agree on certain "oughts", and make them law.
      Codifying the Monolaw
      for example is something we "ought" to do, in other words something
      we desire to do, and
      believe that this particular desire is worth implementing. Laws
      should ( I desire for them to
      be) keep people from dangerously or destructively breaking the
      monolaw.

      Ken









      , "Is", is... that would seem to be pretty self evident.

      Ought (on the other hand) is a lever one man uses to push against
      another. Declare
      something "ought be" and then convince enough people with enough
      power and I guess
      you can get what you say ought to be.

      Those that say you can't get "ought" from "is", or on the other side
      of the chasm, those
      that say that "is" gives us all the "oughts", well they are working
      their own agendas. (This
      is not to imply in anyway that those agendas are self authored: for
      we know they are not.)

      What is hard for humans is for every individual to own up to wanting
      what they want. They
      must say "I desire __________". If what they desire does not do to
      another that which they
      would not want done to themselves, then they should pursue it without
      apologies. Instead
      of saying "This is desirable, or this is undesirable", man employs
      the double speak of "This
      is good, or this is bad", as a means of getting what they DESIRE
      (ironically enough).
    • Will
      Logically, I ought to act in such a way as to help create the kind of world I want to live in. ... without
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 13 4:59 AM
        Logically, I ought to act in such a way as to help create the kind of
        world I want to live in.


        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
        <ken@k...> wrote:
        > Steve: I agree with your post. "Ought" is about desires, needs, and
        > not about anything
        > "ultimate". We don't need to claim "oughts" are anything but
        > pragmatic rules that we
        > believe are useful and meet our ideals.
        >
        > We need (desire) to agree on certain "oughts", and make them law.
        > Codifying the Monolaw
        > for example is something we "ought" to do, in other words something
        > we desire to do, and
        > believe that this particular desire is worth implementing. Laws
        > should ( I desire for them to
        > be) keep people from dangerously or destructively breaking the
        > monolaw.
        >
        > Ken
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > , "Is", is... that would seem to be pretty self evident.
        >
        > Ought (on the other hand) is a lever one man uses to push against
        > another. Declare
        > something "ought be" and then convince enough people with enough
        > power and I guess
        > you can get what you say ought to be.
        >
        > Those that say you can't get "ought" from "is", or on the other side
        > of the chasm, those
        > that say that "is" gives us all the "oughts", well they are working
        > their own agendas. (This
        > is not to imply in anyway that those agendas are self authored: for
        > we know they are not.)
        >
        > What is hard for humans is for every individual to own up to wanting
        > what they want. They
        > must say "I desire __________". If what they desire does not do to
        > another that which they
        > would not want done to themselves, then they should pursue it
        without
        > apologies. Instead
        > of saying "This is desirable, or this is undesirable", man employs
        > the double speak of "This
        > is good, or this is bad", as a means of getting what they DESIRE
        > (ironically enough).
      • Ken Batts
        Will: I agree, and the payback is the satisfaction of the helpful act itself. By working for the world you want, you d be fulfilling a desire: approaching your
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 13 7:08 AM
          Will: I agree, and the payback is the satisfaction of the helpful act itself. By working for the
          world you want, you'd be fulfilling a desire: approaching your ideal view of yourself; a
          thoughtful, kind, generous, etc. person. And potentially reaping the benefits: gratitude,
          admiration, love, etc.

          Ken





          --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will" <will_g_davidson@y...>
          wrote:
          > Logically, I ought to act in such a way as to help create the kind of
          > world I want to live in.
          >
          >
          > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
          > <ken@k...> wrote:
          > > Steve: I agree with your post. "Ought" is about desires, needs, and
          > > not about anything
          > > "ultimate". We don't need to claim "oughts" are anything but
          > > pragmatic rules that we
          > > believe are useful and meet our ideals.
          > >
          > > We need (desire) to agree on certain "oughts", and make them law.
          > > Codifying the Monolaw
          > > for example is something we "ought" to do, in other words something
          > > we desire to do, and
          > > believe that this particular desire is worth implementing. Laws
          > > should ( I desire for them to
          > > be) keep people from dangerously or destructively breaking the
          > > monolaw.
          > >
          > > Ken
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > , "Is", is... that would seem to be pretty self evident.
          > >
          > > Ought (on the other hand) is a lever one man uses to push against
          > > another. Declare
          > > something "ought be" and then convince enough people with enough
          > > power and I guess
          > > you can get what you say ought to be.
          > >
          > > Those that say you can't get "ought" from "is", or on the other side
          > > of the chasm, those
          > > that say that "is" gives us all the "oughts", well they are working
          > > their own agendas. (This
          > > is not to imply in anyway that those agendas are self authored: for
          > > we know they are not.)
          > >
          > > What is hard for humans is for every individual to own up to wanting
          > > what they want. They
          > > must say "I desire __________". If what they desire does not do to
          > > another that which they
          > > would not want done to themselves, then they should pursue it
          > without
          > > apologies. Instead
          > > of saying "This is desirable, or this is undesirable", man employs
          > > the double speak of "This
          > > is good, or this is bad", as a means of getting what they DESIRE
          > > (ironically enough).
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.