Subject: Re: [evol-psych] "ought" can be plausibly derived from an "is"? Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:25:46 -0500 From: "Dorothy Tennov"
To: "Pascal Bercker" I agree. To repeat what I posted earlier, "The concept of ought is meaningless in the absence of a goal, purpose, or objective. Those who try to find oughts from ises are missing this inevitable point. So also are those who argue otherwise. Oughts and ises are completely separate things and cannot be related to each other. Why there is so much discussion about it comes from the eternal and futile attempt to find absolute standards on which oughts can be based. They do not, and cannot, exist. There must always be an objective, even when the objective is unexpressed." The search for "fundamental normative claims" is the search for agreed-on objectives. The anticipated difficulty in securing agreement, or even the refusal to accept that agreement is crucial, blocks progress on this philosophical issue. Religions may supply what passes for goals, but the goals of religion are either expressed too vaguely to provide the guidance sought or too specifically to meet the overall needs. DT