David Hume, a 18th century philosopher, stated that no ought-judgement (prescriptive goal based) may be correctly inferred from a set of premises expressed in terms of is (facts). The implication being that if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.&nbsp;This is considered to be an un-solvable philosophical problem. Any existing try ends up with presuppositions of certain goal. In order to go from "Riding motorcycles is bad" to "You ought not ride motorcycles" one has to define bad in accordance with a goal.&nbsp;

David Hume's Guillotine: the is-ought problem 

Sam Harris, a popular neuro-scientist, proposed we move from an is to an ought by recognising that maximising our well-being is a universal factual goal:"Let's assume there is only what *is*. Conscious minds experience the world through experiences. But some experiences suck. If you doubt this place your hand on a hot stove and report back."Sam Harris however presuppose the goal of well-being. But that goal is mostly an *ought* disguised as an *is*, lacking a scientific definition and open to interpretation.&nbsp;

Sam Harris's Moral Landscape

philosophy

Philosophy

To support me on Patreon  (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules

Get your very own DEBUNKED card game here: https://debunked-games.myshopify.com/products/debunked

To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules

DEBUNKED channel: https://youtu.be/u1szN-oewOs

To visit the DEBUNKED card game website: https://www.debunkedcardgame.com/

To support me through merchandise: https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/rationality-rules

To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules

And to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule

--

Timestamps:

00:00 Piety
01:46 Define Your Terms
03:17 Nasrallah
04:49 OKAY
05:44 Game Over
07:15 Sucks?
8:58 Hot Stove
11:38 Moral Relativism

--

References:

1) The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values | Sam Harris

2) A Treatise of Human Nature | David Hume

3) Hume's Moral Philosophy Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/hume-moral/

4) Harris’ premises / Tweets: https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/951276346529009665?lang=en

5) Why Sam Harris is always wrong / with Cole Nasrallah | Kane B: https://youtu.be/4f7fYWLKIFs (great breakdown by two philosophers, Kane Baker and Cole Nasrallah)

6) Sam Harris Debates Sean Carroll on Moral Realism: https://youtu.be/CVZp4nWMphE

7) Science can answer moral questions | Sam Harris: https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww

8) Reductio ad Absurdum | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/

Welcome to Rationality Rules, where we debunk and refute predominately religious and supernatural arguments. Thanks for taking the time to view my channel, and I hope you decide to subscribe for more :)

Harris Ought to Stop

David Hume's Guillotine: the is-ought problem

Sam Harris's Moral Landscape

Vladimir Oane's ideas are part of this journey:

Related collections

Similar ideas