*blocks your path*

i am more confused as to where he stands after watching the video than i was before

such is the power of post-modernism

This guy believes in objective morality bullshit too though.

>refutes Humes law
he's right you know

>talks for 3 minutes
>says nothing of substance
That's why he's /ourguy/.

*sniffs*

What's the distinction and why shouldn't you accept it?

bure ideology :DDDDDD :DD

Why ought one not derive an ought from an is?

What ought is not, what is ought not.

You always derive an ought from an is. If if that 'is' is that you feel like something ought to be.

All oughts are informed by is's.

Because an "is" never fully supports why you "ought" to do something.

is: people don't like being murdered
ought: don't murder them

Well, why should I not murder them just because people don't want me to? It just begs another question each time you try to answer it.

>Because an "is" never fully supports why you "ought" to do something.
"Is" that the case?

*Tucks shirt*
Fuck off pleb

what?

"Is" it true that an is statement never fully supports why you ought to do something?

well obviously I think that is true since I said it

I know he is a vegetarian, but does he eat meat?

So you have an "is" statement, that is statements do not fully justify the subsequent ought statement, but extend that to say one "ought" not make ought statements from is statements. How can this be justified?

It IS true that you will die if you don't drink water, therefore, you OUGHT to drink water.

But was it not just explained that the ought statement is not justified by the is? Remember ? How do you justify the ought to drink water from the is of death without it? Aren't we deriving an ought from an is?

No.
Man ought to be Godly, with his Godly virtues. However, man cannot be Godly, thus he must strive to be as Godly as he can be.

That sort of "is" is an internal concept, but not an external one.

>That sort of "is" is an internal concept, but not an external one.
So it "is" true that one sort of is statement can be used to derive an ought statement, but not other types of is statements?

God is one, man ought to be one, one is not man.

I'm not the same user, but from what I've experienced moral values come from internal code rather than general phenomena.

The general value implied in Social Darwinism, for example, is efficiency and a social hierarchy. You don't derive ought from is, but how things should be, or "should is". This can coincide with the notion of "is", but is a separate thread of reasoning in itself.

I'm a pseudointellectual, not a theologian.

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Colossians 3:11)

the other person talking to you isn't the original person you were asking, I am. the is ought problem only applies to moral statements. you're mixing it up with all oughts and not just moral ones

>the is ought problem only applies to moral statements.
Why?

Objective morality is retarded but how are we going to install morality in future AI and robots.

because the problem is about deriving morality from statements of fact. it is actually true that you will die if you don't eat and drink, so if you don't want to die you ought to eat and drink. however, that is not about whether it is right or wrong to stay alive or eat and drink.

>however, that is not about whether it is right or wrong to stay alive or eat and drink.
However; we can say it is pragmatic from a certain perspective of general well being. How is this not a statement of morality, if not direct then at least indirectly?

So the original statement is: "it is actually true that you will die if you don't eat and drink, so if you don't want to die you ought to eat and drink".

This is saying that if somebody doesn't want to die then they ought to eat/drink. This does not make any claim that it is conductive to your general well-being to stay alive or that it is "good" or "the right thing to do" to stay alive. It is only a guideline for people who want to stay alive independent from whether or not it is good or bad or if they consider it good or bad.

What is going on in this webm?

Good post. Although it *is* true you will die if you do not eat it does not follow that you *ought* to eat because there are plenty of people who want to die.

>muh feels

rightly should be refuted