Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 7
    We would need, "Societies ought to be reproductively sustainable," beforehand. It is extremely unlikely that for the millennia of different languages with different words for different normative phenomena, the intent was to refer to reproductive sustainability. For example, divine command theory is often used to justify mass extermination and possibly even the end of humankind as a whole (or the end of human life, followed by an infinite afterlife in Hell), in the name of divine honor. Commented 2 days ago
  • How would you derive "one ought not to murder" from "if murder is universally practiced then society is reproductively unsustainable"? Are you assuming that we ought to act in a way that makes society reproductively sustainable"? Commented 2 days ago
  • You can't get a non-circular definition of "is", the symbol "/", or "problem" from any collection of facts, either. "Ought" isn't special. Words get their meanings by pointing at things and making mouth noises, not by examination of facts. Commented 2 days ago
  • No, its always going to end up tautological when you try and derive an is from an ought. If your thinking like a philosopher. The statement "We should not murder because society should be sustained" must be followed by "and society should be sustained because ...." and that because will need justification, and that justification will need justification so on forever. Part of why Kant was so earth shattering as someone whos life work in some respects was a response to hume is that he broke out of that loop and suggested morality can only come from logic, not mere facts about the world. Commented 6 mins ago