Hume’s law

TIL Hume's Is-Ought Problem

Hume argued we can't logically move from describing what is (facts) to prescribing what ought to be (morals).

Example1:

• Is: "Humans can eat meat."
• Ought: "Therefore, humans should eat meat."

Example2:

• Is: "Air travel is convenient."
• Ought: "We should build more airports and fly more planes."

Example3:

• Is: "XYX is a can’t fail goal"
• Ought: "Therefore, we should prioritize it over everything else."

Each of these required a leap between Is and Ought - the leap involves values, decision-making framework, feelings, and sentiment. This part is not logical; it is not reasoning. Instead, it is subjective and arbitrary.

This is also called fact-value distinction.

Values are made-up concepts. Some of the values that are commonly accepted by us are conventions (of society or companies). We accept them often just because they have existed for a long time instead of being a fundamental truth.

Deep down, what matters and what is good (value) is about meaning, I don't think humans have figured out the meaning of their existence - whatever meaning you come up with, you can always ask the next question of why that is the case. Nagel claims that the only way we derive meaning is when we simply choose to stop asking questions about it.

To summarize, what we do and say are driven by sentiment and feelings, not facts. Change my mind.