2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Problems with the is/ought fallacy?
Can't you just use the is/ought to attack the premises of ethical systems like Utilitarianism? For example, stating "maximizing utility is good" is an implicit "ought" premise because you are stating that utility conduces to things like pleasure and happiness, and we therefore "ought" to follow it or call it good. Utilitarianism may assume this within its premises, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't flawed in-of-itself. I could be completely wrong, so please do not think I am a condescending fool. I legitimately want to understand more because I am in dire need of a moral awakening, and I in no way claim to be an expert.
Comment by wokeupabug at 12/09/2019 at 07:01 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Can't you just use the is/ought to attack the premises of ethical systems like Utilitarianism?
Well, no: the is/ought distinction isn't about propositions (like premises), it's about arguments (or the inferences thereof).
For example, stating "maximizing utility is good" is an implicit "ought" premise...
It's not implicit: utilitarians are quite explicit about this.
Utilitarianism may assume this within its premises...
It's not assumed: utilitarians argue for this.