Subject: RE: [evol-psych] "ought" can be plausibly derived from an "is"?
   Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:58:46 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
   From: Irwin Silverman 
     To: "Hill, David" 
     CC: Pascal Bercker ,

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Hill, David wrote:

>  By the way, why do people typically say (without argument) that "ought" 
> claims are value judgments?  To say that X ought to do Y is not, prima 
>  facie, to make any value judgment at all.  

        Certainly a valid point, but as I have noted in several papers, 
"ought' statements, when they pertain to human affairs, may not seem to be
value judgements, but inexorably fall into the realm of sociopolitics when
extended to their full implication.
        For example, E.O. Wilson's and others' position that we "ought" 
to allow the rainforests to thrive does not appear to be a value statement, 
unless the statement is completed to reveal its actual connotation, which
is, at the expense of jobs in the forestry and construction industries, 
the price of homes, and whatever other economic events may follow.
        There are no scientific facts that will resolve such conflicts of
interest, and we should not, as "fact-finders" pretend that there are.
        This was the essential concept of the thread and it sort of
morphed into a more abstract and encompassing philosophical issue.  Thus, 
I think we may be talking past each other at this point.
        But nevertheless interesting