Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (82176)	1/16/2010 2:53:17 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"How in the Hell is anyone to respond rationally to "How do you get from what is to what out to be?" >>My answer: DEFINE WHAT IS. DEFINE WHAT OUGHT TO BE (you will need to provide a rationale)...and so forth...sigh Well then you agree with me and lets face it, we all have a sense of what ought to be even if we can't define every particular for every circumstance a priori, each circumstance having some unique aspects more or less. We know what it is when we are in the midst of it. It seems I am doing a lot of back tracking but I don't mind if it serves to further clarify the issue. The question was Greg's and I admit it requires a stretch of the imagination to deal with it but I don't like to just leave a good question lying flat, so I picked up the challenge. I presume Greg was waiting to show me how the question is only answerable via scriptural dogma. I don't doubt there are scholarly answers in scripture but that didn't seem to be the nature of his challenge to me. My answer defined what is. What is, is nature ... which is fixed (unchangeable). What ought to be is a moral question and since human nature is bound to the morality of right and wrong I provided the rational of going from what is (nature) to what ought to be (which is a human choosing of right). As I defined it for Greg: (what is)"Nature is SET, as far as I know, for each type of creature and the Universe at large; while there is nothing to do about nature except to live out our time and adapt to circumstances as best we can. (Ought)The nature of Human Beings is bound in the morality of right and wrong and so there is an 'ought to' aspect of what we choose to do." This is so basic, it is an actual 'duh, no kidding.' The answer is not even that interesting or profound. It is central and basic to the human condition. So what? The discussion from there, however, can take off in many interesting directions...issues of free will, conscience, choosing what ought be in the midst of conflict etc which is far more interesting and much more complicated. I give Greg credit for presenting a fantastic question... oddly he didn't have a clue about what a jewel it is, as he left it like so much garbage by the side of the road, to hammer on the insufferable inanity of 'who's worldview club are you in' for two months.

To: Solon who wrote (82176)	1/16/2010 4:53:28 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"How in the Hell is anyone to respond rationally to "How do you get from what is to what out to be?" "Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739): In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.[1] Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? In other words, given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.[2] This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic designation of "Hume's Guillotine".[3] A similar (though distinct) view is defended by G. E. Moore's open question argument, intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties—the so-called naturalistic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org Less' assumption about my motive was wrong. I was not positing a biblical answer, just pointing out her basic philosophical error. She seems to think the answer is that the "ought" is part of the "is", or to say it the way she does: "that's just the way it is". Oh well. No wonder she turned nasty, and then ran away.