Bryan Magee was class! Believe it or not this used to be on the BBC....you’d never have a discussion like this on a PBS nowadays.... cant give the plebs too much thinky stuff now can we?....you’d come back from the pub back in the day late at night and something like this would be on.....awesome! 👏🏻
Is there any chance that the plebs have chosen that they don't want this sort of viewing on their television & that is why it is unavailable? Are something like what we see on PBS today & if the plebs choose the latter, it is their choice, correct? If you give a choice then you have to be prepared that the "wrong (according to your normative position)" is chosen. Or, you can be the aristocrat whom believes they know what is best for the plebs & remove their choice.
(written in the style of Mr. Magee) It is a shame that this variety of content has no chance of ever entering the public sphere like it might have years ago. We are saturated with information about the present and we have forgotten there has been some fellows with quite a lot to say on the subject of the present. I'm hopeful for a resurgence in philosophy consciousness due to its raw ability to put current events into scope. I consider myself lucky to be aware of the subject's existence and practicality. As a young man lacking intellectual support, as sad as it may be, I look towards these kinds of videos to center myself in the chaos of adult evolution. I have felt that thick barrier against authentic communication and have always wondered if it was because of me or the world. Having access to any lucid discourse, even on the internet, brings me a sense of deep reassurance and real confidence that my way of interpreting the world is valid. Which brings me to my guest...
Hot. Now if you can do the one with Charles Taylor we'll finally have the complete set of the original series "Men of Ideas" in English. Took years for youtube to get here. Thanks!
Dear PO, do you know why this interview, which is one of many Magee done, is specially rare and not the other ones? Are there episodes similar in rarity?
11:51 the problem of specialization that started with philosophy and haunts all disciplines. So much concern for the sub theory that specialist is unaware of the fruitfulness of the main theory any more. What is worse is that many don’t care since their pay is based on the continuation of the sub theory however stagnant or barren the main theory is.
@@soheil424 Do you happen to know when was this broadcasted in Iran? Good to know that people all around the world are interested in this kind of material. 👍🏻
Greatest good of the greatest number is the most logical, practical and common sense moral position. Ultimately every other stance is theoretical, contained in utilitarianism or just plain nacelles gazing..
In the actual world there are situations pretty clise to what McGee was posing. For instance, collateral damage. Is killing a terrorist with a drone worth also killing his minor daughter who lives with him?
There are similar situations, but when considering them we should take into account the complexities of the real world that are missing in these hypothetical examples. I think what Hare was arguing against, is using repugnant consequences of utilitarianism when applied to a hypothetical as an argument against utilitarianism, as it will provide a different outcome when applied to the complexities of the real world. I've heard Peter Singer make a similar point. Applying this to your example: maybe killing the terrorist and daughter would be worth it if we only consider that the terrorist will cause great harm if not killed. But, if we also consider the consequences of breaking a rule that helps society function (don't kill innocents), we may conclude that in the long run killing the daughter causes more harm than the suffering prevented by killing the terrorist, and isn't worth it.
In determining a fair wage, it might be useful to determine the average wage for different segments of society (demographically determined), determine the cost of living for those different segments of society and see if certain segments of society are earning less than they are spending or need to spend to raise a family (they are in poverty). For those who are in poverty their income or resources must be added to by government assistance if you want a fair society. Is this so philosophically difficult to figure out? A fair wage would raise one's earnings above the poverty level.
I don't think utilitarianism manged to turn moral landscape of society through power of its ideas. The idea itself is basic and common sense. And really the only workable position, taken as a whole.. What led to adoption of Utilitarianism, from an earlier state when it was not- is the widening moral sphere of human society where we started to think of men as equals in a basic sense. That happend independent due to advancement in education and means of communication
Love the series. Great thinkers, Bryan Magee great interviewer. Thanks for the uploads. G.M Hare is perhaps the most unremarkable of philosophers I've seen on this series. He advocates for teaching his children to not perform sexual acts outside of wedlock based on some 'intuition' he has. and then goes ahead and says all morals should be universal? as if in any case we should never perform sexual acts out of wedlock. This intuition from a christian dogma.. i find it simultaneously hilarious, and disgraceful.
@@GhostofFHBradley why does a specific maxim have to be universal? different times, different places, different values, different preferences. To say a specific moral idea is anything more than simply some emotional preference, and that it should be applied to all, is as totalitarian as it gets. The specific in question, i.e sexual acts outside of wedlock. An idea directly passed on from a slave morality. This is a restriction on something that causes no direct harm. Why on earth would i want to limit other people from engaging in acts that they would want to do otherwise and does no harm to anybody else? Especially my own children. Philosophy is a confession. I'm afraid alongside Hares passion for transport planning it is evident he is just a boring man, finding ways to rationalise his own boring worldview and impose it upon his own children.
@GhostofFHBradley I could suggest there are some actions that I believe nobody anywhere should do. My point is these actions would just be my preference, not some moral law that I should impose on people. I would choose these actions that i find unacceptable loosely based on two criteria, harm to other people or limiting their freedom in some substantial way. What do you think?
@@TheFelimon I like those criteria. I detect Mill in them. And also a hint of Hare! I think there are a few universal moral claims. Here's a couple of examples: (1) _You shouldn't kill people just for the fun of it._ This is definitely a moral claim: 'shouldn't' isn't the 'shouldn't' of prudence. I say it's universal because I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be true. (Unlike Hare, I think some moral claims are straightforwardly true.) If I have to kill someone, I shouldn't do it _just_ for fun - and nor, I think, should anyone else. (2) _Don't boil live babies._ Ditto. Regarding Hare's discussion of intuition and sexual mores from 29:10, why do you think he would want to impose his moral views on his children, or on anyone else?
That's how it is. I just completed his book Moral thinking. It's a complete mess, especially that first part where he talks about the logical meaning of moral words. I would not recommend anyone to read his book, entirely. Some parts are interesting, tho.
@@mekkuper6746 I could not disagree more. I think Hare's work is just about the greatest moral philosophy ever put to paper. If you have any interest in moral philosophy, it is a must-read.
It is strange that Hare thinks Rawls Theory of Justice is reducible to utilitarianism, when Rawls severely criticizes utilitarianism and adopts a contract theory of justice in the manner of Kant, Rousseau, and Locke. It is not so much intuition that Rawls uses and depends on as much as rational moral principles of freedom, equality, and a form of distributive justice. He distinguishes between morals learned as a child from one’s parents and teachers (as authorities) from morals learned from interacting with one’s peers (in growing up) and basing one’s morals on principles (as one might put together a moral code for oneself).
Don't know which side of the population argument he's on but as this is the '70s (I believe) and he's a utilitarian he's probably some Neo-Malthusian (even though even from a malthusian perspective that position has been discredited). Don't know, will have to look more into him.
Hare awkwardly tries to connect utilitarianism and deontology. His theory has nothing to do with Kant's deontology. By imposing probability and preferences it can only be one more version of utilitarianism.
He does no such thing. At no point does he even remotely suggest his is a deontological theory. His two-level utilitarianism is unambiguously a version of act-utilitarianism.
I think Magee lets Hare not answer the all-important question because they are both Oxford men. Consequentialism's core principle is, as Anscombe (I know, I know: traitor! left for the Other Place), philosophically so deeply flawed that it is indefensible. Hare blows up a a nice colourful balloon himself with his "oh, that is just a hypothetical!"
@@nancyborusiewich4821 Let's agree the rest of the biosphere has some moral status. Given what we are, don't we have to start from an anthropocentric point of view?
@@GhostofFHBradley I don't see why. "Given what we are"? You mean human? Or Mammalian? Warm-blooded? Vertibrate? Multicellular? Blonde, brunette, tall, short, clever, stupid? What, IYHO "are" we? What do we privilege and why?
@@nancyborusiewich4821 Given your use of the word 'anthropocentric' I say I'm _anthropos._ I also say that moral philosophy concerns us, _anthropoi:_ otherwise we wouldn't do it, or think we ought to do it. Other kinds of life might ask themselves questions about good and bad and right and wrong - but if they do, it would (to borrow your word) be _anthropocentric_ of me to suppose they ask themselves the same sorts of question, in the same sorts of way, as we do. So I say there's there's a distinctively human way of asking, and trying to answer, moral questions. I suspect you think this too, since you identify it as 'anthropocentric', although you say it's 'next to useless'. I wonder how moral philosophy, as it's done by _anthropoi,_ can start from any other point of view than an anthropocentric one - although it needn't stay that way. If we value other life than human, it's because we have learned, from living as humans, what sorts of thing are worth valuing. Is this useless, or next to it? Or do you suppose that moral philosophy can begin with a species-neutral view from nowhere? I hope I've answered your first question, what I think we are: _anthropoi,_ _homo sapiens sapiens,_ humans, featherless bipeds, trousered apes. You also ask 'What do we privilege and why?' I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What do you mean?
No philosopher has demonstrated how an "ought" may be derived from an "is"? Then it pleases me to be the first. All "oughts" exist relative to an end, or goal. If your goal is to make a sweet cake, you ought use sugar, rather than salt. If your goal is to follow the dictates of some God, then you ought do as the God commands. There is a goal innate to all sentient beings: survival, thriving, authentic expression. Given the *fact* of this inherent goal, oughts may be derived, such as one ought not eat poison, etc. This fact is true of others as well, thus we ought not poison them either, as this would deny that "is", and operating from falsehood is not aligned with their, or our, innate goal, since acting in accordance with truth makes us most effective in that goal, as in all others. Morality is objectively derived from the facts of all relevant parties, and prescribes behavior that duly acknowledges those facts.
You're making prudential claims, which are usually regarded as distinct from moral, this video provides a nice explanation of the difference th-cam.com/video/1X6R8ze7O0I/w-d-xo.html Not eating poison is definitely prudent for survival. Whether that makes it moral is a different question, and much harder to answer with facts. You seem to claim that what is prudent for some innate goal is moral, but why? This is not self-evident to me. In stating that moral statements describe objective facts about the world, you seem to be arguing for a form of descriptivism. It is difficult to see why acknowledging facts implies one should also prescribe them, which leads to the claim that one cannot derive an ought from an is. David Hume famously wrote about this in his Treatise on Human Nature. The prescriptivism that Hare is arguing for is a different theory, and according to that theory moral statements cannot be derived from facts at all, they are merely prescriptive.
@@Kili42 I guess the first step would be to define "moral". I would define it as a prescriptive standard of behavior for sentient beings with the capacity for choice. If this definition is accepted, the next step would be to establish the basis for the standard. If it's entirely subjective (defined by each individual being), it differs not at all from preference, or even whim. This obviates the concept of morality because if man is the standard for morality, morality cannot be the standard for man. If morality is not such a standard, it fails to meet its own definition. If it's objective, which aspect of objective reality forms the basis? I can think of no rational answers besides God, and/or the inherent nature of the being/s in question. The latter is known to exist, while the former remains in question, so prudence dictates we opt for the latter (plus even if God exists, we have the question of knowing His will with any degree certainty, and were we to infer, the inherent nature of His creations would be a likely basis for inference).
@@colinwood1337 Absolutely. Not only can we *derive* an ought from an is, but the oughts are *necessary implied* within the is's. Facts about the goal, and all thing relevant to that goal, prescribe particular behaviors.
If it's innate, then if it's morally trivial. It makes not sense to say that "a bird ought to fly" when it simply does. If, on the other hand, choice is involved, then no exhaustive account of human nature, however incontrovertible, get's us anywhere: you ought to survive, thrive, be happy... if you want to. The only potential solution is in the *if*, but that's different from an appeal to nature.
Bryan Magee was class! Believe it or not this used to be on the BBC....you’d never have a discussion like this on a PBS nowadays.... cant give the plebs too much thinky stuff now can we?....you’d come back from the pub back in the day late at night and something like this would be on.....awesome! 👏🏻
11th October is q3q3qq qqààaaq qwq4 n
I know someone called Ian Donnelly in Birmingham, England. You're not he, are you?
@@logiclane9550 No I’m not....have you seen the movie “Arrival”....I’m that one....
Is there any chance that the plebs have chosen that they don't want this sort of viewing on their television & that is why it is unavailable? Are something like what we see on PBS today & if the plebs choose the latter, it is their choice, correct?
If you give a choice then you have to be prepared that the "wrong (according to your normative position)" is chosen. Or, you can be the aristocrat whom believes they know what is best for the plebs & remove their choice.
ideas can change the world and that's not what our masters intend for us
Thank you for uploading this rare episode!!
i've been trying to find this episode for a few years now.
Wow a Bryan Magee program I've never watched before. Thanks for the upload !
Finally! Hare is my favorite and I've always wanted to see this. I've only ever read transcripts of the interview.
(written in the style of Mr. Magee)
It is a shame that this variety of content has no chance of ever entering the public sphere like it might have years ago. We are saturated with information about the present and we have forgotten there has been some fellows with quite a lot to say on the subject of the present. I'm hopeful for a resurgence in philosophy consciousness due to its raw ability to put current events into scope. I consider myself lucky to be aware of the subject's existence and practicality.
As a young man lacking intellectual support, as sad as it may be, I look towards these kinds of videos to center myself in the chaos of adult evolution. I have felt that thick barrier against authentic communication and have always wondered if it was because of me or the world. Having access to any lucid discourse, even on the internet, brings me a sense of deep reassurance and real confidence that my way of interpreting the world is valid. Which brings me to my guest...
Haha not bad. Keep emulating and practicing that style of articulation and you may develop a rather unique eloquence.
Bless you, good luck!
This is a fabulous series. I feel positive and refreshed every time I watch an episode.
Had no idea there was one with Hare. I thought I saw everything Magee had done.
Same here.
This one's been unavailable for awhile.
Hot. Now if you can do the one with Charles Taylor we'll finally have the complete set of the original series "Men of Ideas" in English. Took years for youtube to get here. Thanks!
I agree
But Bryan Magee did an interview with Charles Taylor.
So far as I know, R M Hare was one of the men who built the bridge over the River Kwai.
Dear PO, do you know why this interview, which is one of many Magee done, is specially rare and not the other ones? Are there episodes similar in rarity?
11:51 the problem of specialization that started with philosophy and haunts all disciplines. So much concern for the sub theory that specialist is unaware of the fruitfulness of the main theory any more. What is worse is that many don’t care since their pay is based on the continuation of the sub theory however stagnant or barren the main theory is.
Indeed...
Was this filmed in Saudi Arabia?
No.
Those scripts are persian (farsi). It's been on Iranian state tv channel 4
@@soheil424 Interesting. It was filmed in England, presumably London.
@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 that's right. And some times later, decades later, got broadcasted in iranian tv with presumely persian subtitles
@@soheil424 Do you happen to know when was this broadcasted in Iran? Good to know that people all around the world are interested in this kind of material. 👍🏻
Excavated in 'Ancient Iran' = Persia?
Greatest good of the greatest number is the most logical, practical and common sense moral position. Ultimately every other stance is theoretical, contained in utilitarianism or just plain nacelles gazing..
When I saw the thumbnail I thought what the hell happened to Bryan Magee then I clicked on it and realised it was other guy
In the actual world there are situations pretty clise to what McGee was posing. For instance, collateral damage. Is killing a terrorist with a drone worth also killing his minor daughter who lives with him?
There are similar situations, but when considering them we should take into account the complexities of the real world that are missing in these hypothetical examples.
I think what Hare was arguing against, is using repugnant consequences of utilitarianism when applied to a hypothetical as an argument against utilitarianism, as it will provide a different outcome when applied to the complexities of the real world. I've heard Peter Singer make a similar point.
Applying this to your example: maybe killing the terrorist and daughter would be worth it if we only consider that the terrorist will cause great harm if not killed. But, if we also consider the consequences of breaking a rule that helps society function (don't kill innocents), we may conclude that in the long run killing the daughter causes more harm than the suffering prevented by killing the terrorist, and isn't worth it.
@@Kili42 Who decides who lives and who dies? You?
The sound quality is bad.
In determining a fair wage, it might be useful to determine the average wage for different segments of society (demographically determined), determine the cost of living for those different segments of society and see if certain segments of society are earning less than they are spending or need to spend to raise a family (they are in poverty). For those who are in poverty their income or resources must be added to by government assistance if you want a fair society. Is this so philosophically difficult to figure out? A fair wage would raise one's earnings above the poverty level.
Hale's a little awkward at first and BM has to work hard to extract anything from him. 'Concepts' drive Hale when he buys a pint of milk.
I don't think utilitarianism manged to turn moral landscape of society through power of its ideas. The idea itself is basic and common sense. And really the only workable position, taken as a whole..
What led to adoption of Utilitarianism, from an earlier state when it was not- is the widening moral sphere of human society where we started to think of men as equals in a basic sense. That happend independent due to advancement in education and means of communication
Love the series. Great thinkers, Bryan Magee great interviewer. Thanks for the uploads.
G.M Hare is perhaps the most unremarkable of philosophers I've seen on this series. He advocates for teaching his children to not perform sexual acts outside of wedlock based on some 'intuition' he has. and then goes ahead and says all morals should be universal? as if in any case we should never perform sexual acts out of wedlock. This intuition from a christian dogma.. i find it simultaneously hilarious, and disgraceful.
How so?
@@GhostofFHBradley why does a specific maxim have to be universal? different times, different places, different values, different preferences. To say a specific moral idea is anything more than simply some emotional preference, and that it should be applied to all, is as totalitarian as it gets.
The specific in question, i.e sexual acts outside of wedlock. An idea directly passed on from a slave morality. This is a restriction on something that causes no direct harm. Why on earth would i want to limit other people from engaging in acts that they would want to do otherwise and does no harm to anybody else? Especially my own children.
Philosophy is a confession. I'm afraid alongside Hares passion for transport planning it is evident he is just a boring man, finding ways to rationalise his own boring worldview and impose it upon his own children.
@@TheFelimon Are there no universal maxims?
@GhostofFHBradley I could suggest there are some actions that I believe nobody anywhere should do. My point is these actions would just be my preference, not some moral law that I should impose on people. I would choose these actions that i find unacceptable loosely based on two criteria, harm to other people or limiting their freedom in some substantial way.
What do you think?
@@TheFelimon I like those criteria. I detect Mill in them. And also a hint of Hare!
I think there are a few universal moral claims. Here's a couple of examples:
(1) _You shouldn't kill people just for the fun of it._
This is definitely a moral claim: 'shouldn't' isn't the 'shouldn't' of prudence. I say it's universal because I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be true. (Unlike Hare, I think some moral claims are straightforwardly true.) If I have to kill someone, I shouldn't do it _just_ for fun - and nor, I think, should anyone else.
(2) _Don't boil live babies._
Ditto.
Regarding Hare's discussion of intuition and sexual mores from 29:10, why do you think he would want to impose his moral views on his children, or on anyone else?
14 minutes in and still hardly a word about moral philosophy
That's how it is. I just completed his book Moral thinking. It's a complete mess, especially that first part where he talks about the logical meaning of moral words. I would not recommend anyone to read his book, entirely. Some parts are interesting, tho.
@@mekkuper6746 I could not disagree more. I think Hare's work is just about the greatest moral philosophy ever put to paper. If you have any interest in moral philosophy, it is a must-read.
Dr Amartya Sen always attacked Utilitarianism. Must read his views.
Dude kinda looks like Conan O'Brien in a bald cap.
🤣
It is strange that Hare thinks Rawls Theory of Justice is reducible to utilitarianism, when Rawls severely criticizes utilitarianism and adopts a contract theory of justice in the manner of Kant, Rousseau, and Locke. It is not so much intuition that Rawls uses and depends on as much as rational moral principles of freedom, equality, and a form of distributive justice. He distinguishes between morals learned as a child from one’s parents and teachers (as authorities) from morals learned from interacting with one’s peers (in growing up) and basing one’s morals on principles (as one might put together a moral code for oneself).
He seems a bit crabby
Should I respect your morality if it's not at odds with human procreation?
I think I'll answer my own question.
No, I shouldn't respect it.
@@somethingyousaid5059wdym?
Don't know which side of the population argument he's on but as this is the '70s (I believe) and he's a utilitarian he's probably some Neo-Malthusian (even though even from a malthusian perspective that position has been discredited). Don't know, will have to look more into him.
Hare awkwardly tries to connect utilitarianism and deontology. His theory has nothing to do with Kant's deontology. By imposing probability and preferences it can only be one more version of utilitarianism.
He does no such thing. At no point does he even remotely suggest his is a deontological theory. His two-level utilitarianism is unambiguously a version of act-utilitarianism.
I think Magee lets Hare not answer the all-important question because they are both Oxford men. Consequentialism's core principle is, as Anscombe (I know, I know: traitor! left for the Other Place), philosophically so deeply flawed that it is indefensible. Hare blows up a a nice colourful balloon himself with his "oh, that is just a hypothetical!"
A lot of words got used there, funny how the words wrong, apologia, hypocrisy didn't so much. Ummm 🤔
Terribly arid. You can see what Philippa Foot's reputation is higher than Hare's
Anthropocentric discussions of moral philosophy are next to useless.
How so?
@@GhostofFHBradley Too narrow. Ignores the rest of the biosphere except insofar as it serves humanity.
@@nancyborusiewich4821 Let's agree the rest of the biosphere has some moral status. Given what we are, don't we have to start from an anthropocentric point of view?
@@GhostofFHBradley I don't see why. "Given what we are"? You mean human? Or Mammalian? Warm-blooded? Vertibrate? Multicellular? Blonde, brunette, tall, short, clever, stupid? What, IYHO "are" we? What do we privilege and why?
@@nancyborusiewich4821 Given your use of the word 'anthropocentric' I say I'm _anthropos._ I also say that moral philosophy concerns us, _anthropoi:_ otherwise we wouldn't do it, or think we ought to do it. Other kinds of life might ask themselves questions about good and bad and right and wrong - but if they do, it would (to borrow your word) be _anthropocentric_ of me to suppose they ask themselves the same sorts of question, in the same sorts of way, as we do. So I say there's there's a distinctively human way of asking, and trying to answer, moral questions. I suspect you think this too, since you identify it as 'anthropocentric', although you say it's 'next to useless'.
I wonder how moral philosophy, as it's done by _anthropoi,_ can start from any other point of view than an anthropocentric one - although it needn't stay that way. If we value other life than human, it's because we have learned, from living as humans, what sorts of thing are worth valuing. Is this useless, or next to it? Or do you suppose that moral philosophy can begin with a species-neutral view from nowhere?
I hope I've answered your first question, what I think we are: _anthropoi,_ _homo sapiens sapiens,_ humans, featherless bipeds, trousered apes. You also ask 'What do we privilege and why?' I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What do you mean?
No philosopher has demonstrated how an "ought" may be derived from an "is"? Then it pleases me to be the first. All "oughts" exist relative to an end, or goal. If your goal is to make a sweet cake, you ought use sugar, rather than salt. If your goal is to follow the dictates of some God, then you ought do as the God commands.
There is a goal innate to all sentient beings: survival, thriving, authentic expression. Given the *fact* of this inherent goal, oughts may be derived, such as one ought not eat poison, etc.
This fact is true of others as well, thus we ought not poison them either, as this would deny that "is", and operating from falsehood is not aligned with their, or our, innate goal, since acting in accordance with truth makes us most effective in that goal, as in all others.
Morality is objectively derived from the facts of all relevant parties, and prescribes behavior that duly acknowledges those facts.
You're making prudential claims, which are usually regarded as distinct from moral, this video provides a nice explanation of the difference th-cam.com/video/1X6R8ze7O0I/w-d-xo.html
Not eating poison is definitely prudent for survival. Whether that makes it moral is a different question, and much harder to answer with facts. You seem to claim that what is prudent for some innate goal is moral, but why? This is not self-evident to me.
In stating that moral statements describe objective facts about the world, you seem to be arguing for a form of descriptivism. It is difficult to see why acknowledging facts implies one should also prescribe them, which leads to the claim that one cannot derive an ought from an is. David Hume famously wrote about this in his Treatise on Human Nature.
The prescriptivism that Hare is arguing for is a different theory, and according to that theory moral statements cannot be derived from facts at all, they are merely prescriptive.
@@Kili42 I guess the first step would be to define "moral". I would define it as a prescriptive standard of behavior for sentient beings with the capacity for choice.
If this definition is accepted, the next step would be to establish the basis for the standard. If it's entirely subjective (defined by each individual being), it differs not at all from preference, or even whim. This obviates the concept of morality because if man is the standard for morality, morality cannot be the standard for man. If morality is not such a standard, it fails to meet its own definition.
If it's objective, which aspect of objective reality forms the basis? I can think of no rational answers besides God, and/or the inherent nature of the being/s in question. The latter is known to exist, while the former remains in question, so prudence dictates we opt for the latter (plus even if God exists, we have the question of knowing His will with any degree certainty, and were we to infer, the inherent nature of His creations would be a likely basis for inference).
Well your oughts are disguised facts. If you want a sweet cake, the fact is the cake must include an ingredient that tastes sweet.
@@colinwood1337 Absolutely. Not only can we *derive* an ought from an is, but the oughts are *necessary implied* within the is's. Facts about the goal, and all thing relevant to that goal, prescribe particular behaviors.
If it's innate, then if it's morally trivial. It makes not sense to say that "a bird ought to fly" when it simply does. If, on the other hand, choice is involved, then no exhaustive account of human nature, however incontrovertible, get's us anywhere: you ought to survive, thrive, be happy... if you want to. The only potential solution is in the *if*, but that's different from an appeal to nature.
This insularity is the reason why nobody will remember 20th century British philosophy.
All of this concept analysis is silly and leads to nothing worthwhile.
Philosophy isn't Science....but we use use it to analyse the validity of Arguments,Concepts and Evidence!