It is a delusion in the sense that it need not be the case that there are “ought” statements. Other animals don’t seem to have them, and if the universe is completely deterministic, then saying how things ought to be is a form of delusion. It is denying how things must be. — Noah Te Stroete
(I have no idea what it means for "ought" statements to be a delusion.) — Magnus Anderson
I am not sure what you're trying to say. I am not trying to criticize morality. I am simply saying that:
1) saying that one ought to do something or that things ought to be in some way is not necessarily a sign of resentment
2) morality is not a delusion
That's it. — Magnus Anderson
I think determinism and free will are matters of identification. If I believe I'm moving my finger, I'm identifying with whatever it is that moves everything. To be a determinist is to objectify everything (including myself). — frank
You ought to eat something within a period of month if you don't want to die. That's an ought. Again, hardly disputable. What's strange is the claim that every ought -- which means this one as well -- is a sign of resentment. That's clearly NOT the case. — Magnus Anderson
I ought to do X, thus avoidning Y, where Y is some negative consequence or condition is the main argument I'm hearing.This seems to have an air of escapism to me. Equating an ought statement to resenting the present state of things and wishing for some other arrangement of them accounts for only situations where there is something to be avoided, but how about when something may be pursued? I ought to do X to attain Y is not a statement of resentment, it is a goal. Take for instance charity. "I ought to give to charity because doing so makes me feel good." I exchange X for Y, money for positive emotional experience. — Pathogen
The OP was saying (as far as I can tell) that the world IS a certain way. “Ought” statements are a wishing of how people want it to be. At least some kinds of “ought” statements are therefore delusional. — Noah Te Stroete
So in the case of the powerful man killing the person who might expose him, my gut reaction is 'no he really shouldn't kill them.' What is that should? It's there. It's different than the other shoulds and oughts you mentioned (which are 'hypothetical', in Kantian terms.) It's not that he shouldn't kill them because [x].It's just like, man, he shouldn't kill them (categorical, in Kantian terms.) Two things : You ought not do that because... And : you shouldn't do that, period. — csalisbury
They both exist, and if you follow any hypothetical ought (you ought to do this because...) for enough steps, it will always bottom out in a categorical one. — csalisbury
↪Baskol1 At the top of every hierarchy of goals there is a goal that is chosen freely in the sense that it is not chosen in order to attain some other goal. The choice of such a goal is certainly regulated by external factors (by the so-called nature) but it is not regulated by internal factors (such as your other goals.)
So if you don't want to die in a month, you better eat something. And if you want to eat something, you better think of ways to find food. Say you decide you want to buy some rice (I don't like rice but that's what came up first.) So if you want to buy some rice, you better find a shop that sells it. And so on and so forth. That's an example of a hierarchy of goals. At the top of that hierarchy is a goal -- to be alive in a month. You chose that goal independently from any other goal. You don't want to be alive in a month in order to attain some other goal . . . you just want to be alive in a month. It's an arbitrary choice mediated only by external factors.
No other goal is telling you it's best to be alive in a month. You might as well just choose to not be alive in a month. Most people don't because they can't -- the need to remain alive is too strong. — Magnus Anderson
No - that’s still a choice. — Possibility
But being hungry for a month isn’t the same as “I am hungry - I ought to eat.” When you equate an experience of hunger with impending death, and view death as unacceptable, then you are heading into moral territory - you resent/reject reality. The reality is that hunger is a normal experience of living, and that death comes to everyone.
Just because most people don’t want to die, does not eliminate death from our reality. When we accept this reality then there is no ‘ought’, there is no morality - there is simply a capacity to choose.
I’m also curious as to what you mean by objectify. As in, reduces our inner experience to tiny little atoms being pushed forward in the same way they are with apples or tractors — st0ic
think that we can objectify everything, but still hold that those objects give way to emergent phenomena, such as you and I identifying with our vessel and being along for the — st0ic
Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank
Well. There you go. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.