Is–ought problem facts for kids
The is–ought problem is a big question in philosophy that was first talked about by a Scottish thinker named David Hume. It comes up when someone tries to say what people should do (what "ought" to be) based only on what is happening or what is true.
Hume noticed that there's a huge difference between statements that just describe things (like "the sky is blue") and statements that tell us what we should do (like "you ought to be kind"). He found it hard to see how you could logically go from a "what is" statement to a "what ought to be" statement. This idea is sometimes called Hume's law or Hume's guillotine. It means you can't just use facts to decide what is right or wrong.
Another philosopher, G. E. Moore, had a similar idea. He argued that you can't say moral things are the same as natural things. Some philosophers, called ethical naturalists, don't agree and think there's no problem with this.
The "is–ought problem" is also connected to the idea of separating facts from values. While they are similar, the fact–value idea can also include things like aesthetics (what we find beautiful), not just ethics (what is right and wrong).
Contents
Understanding the Is-Ought Problem
What David Hume Said
Hume wrote about this problem in his book, A Treatise of Human Nature, way back in 1739. He said:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised 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, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; 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. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Hume was saying that writers often start by talking about how things are. But then, without explaining how, they suddenly start talking about how things ought to be. He thought this was a big jump that needed to be explained.
What This Means
Hume wanted people to be careful about making these jumps. He asked: How can an "ought" really come from an "is"? This question has become super important in understanding ethics. Hume is often seen as saying that it's impossible to make this jump.
Today, "Hume's law" often means that you can't logically figure out what's moral just from facts that aren't moral. Or, more broadly, you can't figure out what's good or bad (including what's beautiful) just from statements that don't involve values.
For example, if you know "The Sun is yellow," you can't logically conclude "It is wrong to murder." The two ideas are not connected in a way that helps you decide what's right or wrong.
Why This Problem Matters
If there's a gap between "is" and "ought," it makes "ought" statements seem less certain. Hume also had an idea called "Hume's fork," which said that all knowledge comes either from logic or from observation. If "ought" statements don't fit into either of these, then it seems like we can't really "know" what is moral. This leads to ideas like moral skepticism, which questions if moral knowledge is even possible.
How People Respond to the Problem
Many philosophers have tried to answer Hume's challenge.
Goals and What We Ought to Do
Some philosophers, called ethical naturalists, believe that moral truths do exist. They think these truths are connected to facts about the real world. They argue that we can get an "ought" from an "is" when we talk about reaching goals.
For example, if someone wants to achieve goal "B," then they "ought" to do "C" to get there. This statement can be checked to see if it's true or false. So, "oughts" exist because people have goals.
However, critics say this just moves the problem. It means the "ought" depends on a person's personal goal, which might not be objective. It doesn't help us decide if one goal is morally better than another.
What About Moral Goals?
Even if we agree that "oughts" depend on goals, this doesn't automatically mean we're talking about morality. A goal might be morally neutral, or even bad. For example, a poisoner might say, "I ought to have used more poison" to achieve their goal of murder. This "ought" isn't moral.
So, the next challenge is to explain what a "moral ought" is. Some ethical systems say that humans have a natural purpose, or telos. If a person acts in a way that helps them fulfill this purpose, they are acting "good." For example, a pair of scissors that cuts well is a "good" pair of scissors because it fulfills its purpose. If humans have a purpose, then acting in line with that purpose could be seen as "good."
But it's not clear if humans actually have a natural purpose. And if someone doesn't want to be "good" (whatever that means), why ought they to be? This is a big question in moral philosophy.
Talking About Ethics (Discourse Ethics)
Some philosophers believe that just by talking and discussing things, we agree to certain "oughts." They argue that when we have a conversation, we automatically accept some basic rules. These rules can then be used to figure out what we "ought" to do. So, they say it doesn't make sense to use the "is–ought problem" to argue against ethics, because the argument itself relies on these hidden "oughts."
Rules from Society (Institutional Facts)
Philosopher John Searle also tried to show how an "ought" can come from an "is." He argued that when you make a promise, you are automatically under an obligation. This obligation is a kind of "ought." For example, if "Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars," then "Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars." The act of promising itself creates the "ought."
Searle also talked about "institutional facts." These are facts that exist because we all agree on them, like a building being a bank or a piece of paper being money. These facts depend on our shared understanding and values.
Examples Where "Ought" Comes from "Is"
Some philosophers have given examples where an "ought" seems to logically follow from an "is":
- Arthur Prior said that from "He is a sea captain," it logically follows, "He ought to do what a sea captain ought to do."
- Alasdair MacIntyre pointed out that if a watch is "grossly inaccurate and irregular in time-keeping and too heavy to carry about comfortably," then it logically follows that "This is a bad watch."
Realism About Morality
Philippa Foot argued that moral evaluations are not just added on top of facts. She used the example of an "injury." Not just anything counts as an injury; it has to be something that harms a person. If someone says a person doesn't need their hands or eyes, that's like saying they don't want anything at all, because hands and eyes are used for so many important things.
Foot suggested that virtues like wisdom, self-control, courage, and fairness are like hands and eyes. They are so important for living a good life that it's hard to argue they aren't good qualities. She believed that any person has a reason to try to be virtuous and avoid bad habits.
Did Hume Change His Mind?
Some scholars argue that in the very book where Hume discusses the "is–ought problem," he himself seems to derive an "ought" from an "is." This has led to a debate about whether Hume truly believed that "ought" statements could never come from "is" statements, or if he just meant that you need very good arguments to make that connection.
See also
- Fact–value distinction
- Moral responsibility
- Normative economics
- Positive economics
- Science of morality
