1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Problems with the is/ought fallacy?
Oof. I believe I misread him. I suppose my real question lies in another place. Can we apply the "is/ought" to valuations of "good" and "bad"?
Comment by wokeupabug at 12/09/2019 at 07:23 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say "apply the is/ought to valuations of good and bad."
The is/ought distinction is highlighting the fact that you can't validly infer a conclusion about moral values (the ought) from premises that aren't about moral values (the is). So what you apply it to are arguments which purport to infer a conclusion about a moral value but which don't have premises about moral values. But this is just a general point of logic: you're just pointing out that the argument isn't valid.
This is no different from how we can't validly infer conclusions about cats without having premises about cats. You can apply this rule if I say, "Look, I'll prove cats are better than dogs: I have two hands, therefore cats are better than dogs." And you'd say, "Hold on, that argument plainly isn't valid."