Have you ever engaged in debate or dialectic with some conservative or glibertarian and, after recommending some mild palliative program to remedy a social ill, gotten the smug retort, “You can’t derive an ought from an is! You can’t!”
You: People are sleeping under bridges. We ought to provide housing for them.
Ayn Rand acolyte: You can’t derive an ought from an is! David Hume proved that! Don’t you know anything?
The famous ought-is problem, the self-satisfied last rhetorical redoubt of every glibertarian, Objectivist, and conservative pseudo-philosopher. “Hume’s Guillotine is just SCIENCE, libtard! HAHAHA stupid libs owned again!”
But Hume never said that. Here is the excerpt from “A Treatise on Human Nature”, from whence the alleged guillotine is derived:
“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.”
But wait! You say, “it's necessary that it should be observed and explained”
Mr. Hume, have you derived an “ought” from an “is”? Or are you saying there’s a difference between “should” and “ought”? Or is it possible that you were saying something altogether different from what has been popularly derived from this paragraph?
The key word is “deduction”. Hume’s most enduring contribution to philosophy is his “Problem of Induction”. Long story recapped: there are two ways to produce knowledge and conclusions. One is deduction. For example, two things are stipulated as true, and a third thing is deduced from them:
1. John lives in London.
2. London is in the south of England.
3. Therefore, John lives in the south of England.
Once a valid deduction is arrived at, it’s impossible to see how the result could be otherwise. Deductions are purely logical, math-like constructions. 1+1=2, and if you disagree, please explain!
Induction is every other possible path to a conclusion. It’s most logical form is probability, but the epistemology of probabilities allow for any probability prediction to be wrong. Remember when HRC had a 95% chance of being elected? Yes, like that! Any probability of less than 100% can be invalidated by the results. There are no sure things in probability.
Another form of induction is a dream. A couple of things, for example, have been invented in dreams: Modern sewing machines are one, the structure of DNA is another. I think no one has to be convinced that your dreams can be wrong. The Oracle of Delphi is another path to induction; so is inspiration through poetry.
Inductions, no matter from whence they arise, can easily and always be perceived as possibly wrong, being mere guesses. Basing the guess on probability adds confidence, but not surety. Deductions cannot be perceived as wrong once validly conjugated. Hume’s problem of Induction was basically this: How does one justify an induction? One cannot. But you could read “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” by Sir Karl Popper for a workaround.
I have but one more thing to say about Hume’s Guillotine: as typically used by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel fanboys, and other dumb smart people like lawyers and doctors, it’s asserted that “You can’t derive an ought from an is!”
Let’s run through the semantics of this. What if I say, “There’s a McDonalds on the corner. We ought to be able to get some Nuggets there.” Well, I may be wrong about that, but I did derive an ought from an is, didn’t I? It is possible to do so, if perhaps inadvisable, so I can draw this conclusion. It’s not the same as saying, “You cannot draw a circle in which the distance from edge to the center varies.” No, I agree that I cannot. So I think what they are trying to say is, more correctly, “You ought not derive an ought from an is”, which is a contradiction in and of their own terms, and sounds stupid too. Better: “You cannot logically justify an ought derived from an is.” While true, most of us work by induction 90% of the time. Deduction does come around in technical matters, like troubleshooting machinery, but everyone derives ought from is every damned day of their lives, multiple times, sunup to sundown. Your brain is an induction marvel! Do your conservatard interlocutors work through pure deduction 100% of the time? Even Spock and Data use probability analysis, Ben Shapiro, so WTF are you talking about? Hume’s Guillotine, as abused by Ben Shapiro and his ilk, is only deployed to derail your thought process by using an “Argument from Authority”, an informal, widespread logical fallacy that should be consigned to the flames.
I’m done with this diary, and i can’t possibly see how I’m wrong about any of this, as I induced it all from a dream. Step up and whack me with your own philospeak, if you dare!
