CSE 2019   Attend 3 sessions on preparing for CSE 2019 , right from the right preparation strategy, reading the newspaper, making notes to how to write good answers. Orientation session is open to all and mandatory for all CGP Students. Click here for details.
MITRA'S IAS - PHILOSOPHY: Seminar on - 27th Sep. - 5pm & 9th Oct. – 11 am
Foundation Classes: 28th Sep. and 29th Sep.
For more information call us at - Tel. No :- 01145505509, Mob. No-8826469839, 9560928172 or
Mail us at :- mitrasiasclasses@gmail.com
,Website:- www.mitrasias.com

On what grounds the dichotomy between is and ought can be justified or rejected?

Can someone please answer this..how to aproach
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. |Philosophy|

Comments

  • ????
    You wouldn't like me when i'm angry Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. |Philosophy|
  • The is - ought dichotomy was propounded by Hume and it has been subjected to a lot of debate ever since.

    The primary difference between the two is that the 'is' refers to things as they are, i.e,they are matters of fact and are descriptive, while 'ought' refers to how things should be, it is normative in nature.

    Now, Hume says that 'ought' is simply a product of 'is', therefore what 'ought to be' is biased by our preconceived notion of what 'is'.
    For example: Meat eaters eat meat, and for them it is a normal thing which is descriptive. Therefore their perception of the world and on gaining nutrition will always be colored through their notion of eating meat (which is normal from their point of view). However, in a world which is normative, eating meat might be immoral.

    Therefore, according to Hume we cannot simply go from 'is' to 'ought', and morality is biased and pre-conceived since it is colored on the basis of 'is'. This is also known as Hume's guillotine.

    However, the dichotomy can be solved if we are willing to let go of all presuppositions and pre conceived notions:
    1. Husserl's phenomenology is one such way of seeing things as they really are after applying bracketing and reduction.
    2. Kant's categorical imperative says that morality is supreme therefore such a dichotomy does not make much sense.
    3. Functionalists like John Searle say that logic can be used to deduce facts, and is and ought are logically related.
    4. Existentialists say that truth that matters is subjective and is dependent on an individuals experiences, therefore morality is individualistic.

    Hope it helps bhai.
    Leaving forum for now. All the best to everyone!

    Rank 267 - CSE 2017.
  • Thanks a lot bhai...its clear now...
    You wouldn't like me when i'm angry Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. |Philosophy|
  • edited August 16

    The is - ought dichotomy was propounded by Hume and it has been subjected to a lot of debate ever since.

    The primary difference between the two is that the 'is' refers to things as they are, i.e,they are matters of fact and are descriptive, while 'ought' refers to how things should be, it is normative in nature.

    Now, Hume says that 'ought' is simply a product of 'is', therefore what 'ought to be' is biased by our preconceived notion of what 'is'.
    For example: Meat eaters eat meat, and for them it is a normal thing which is descriptive. Therefore their perception of the world and on gaining nutrition will always be colored through their notion of eating meat (which is normal from their point of view). However, in a world which is normative, eating meat might be immoral.

    Therefore, according to Hume we cannot simply go from 'is' to 'ought', and morality is biased and pre-conceived since it is colored on the basis of 'is'. This is also known as Hume's guillotine.

    However, the dichotomy can be solved if we are willing to let go of all presuppositions and pre conceived notions:
    1. Husserl's phenomenology is one such way of seeing things as they really are after applying bracketing and reduction.
    2. Kant's categorical imperative says that morality is supreme therefore such a dichotomy does not make much sense.
    3. Functionalists like John Searle say that logic can be used to deduce facts, and is and ought are logically related.
    4. Existentialists say that truth that matters is subjective and is dependent on an individuals experiences, therefore morality is individualistic.

    Hope it helps bhai.

    Reviving this year old thread from before I had written my first mains.

    Interested philosophy enthusiasts may ask and answer queries from each other.

    Even I will contribute if I think I can help in any way and I manage to find time (although I don't have much time).

    P.s: I am extremely poor in Indian philosophy and also quite poor with a few other concepts of western so I am no better than someone else. Anyone who feels comfortable in contributing should contribute without thinking twice..
    Leaving forum for now. All the best to everyone!

    Rank 267 - CSE 2017.
  • is-ought dichotomy is also a prominent critic of hume on Teleological argument for God..It can also be used for cosmological arguments
    Prelims - 4, Mains - 2, Interview - 1, Service - 1 (Reserve List 2017)
  • is-ought dichotomy is also a prominent critic of hume on Teleological argument for God..It can also be used for cosmological arguments

    +1

    Bhai, wittgenstein ka saying vs showing pe kuch prakash daliye if possible.

    Also nyaya/vaisheshika ka theory of appearance kya hai? (found it in syllabus, notes m toh hai hi nahi).
    Leaving forum for now. All the best to everyone!

    Rank 267 - CSE 2017.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog