Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    An analysis of 'ought' that eliminates genuine contradict... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral obligation

    An analysis of 'ought' that eliminates genuine contradiction between such statements cannot be correct

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If 'ought' statements are indexed to the agent's own ends, then 'We ought to bom...Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral obligationIt is evident that those two statements do contradict one another

    Similar

    The inference from 'ought'-statements to meaning statements is questio...85%One cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (Hume's is-ought gap).83%Replacing 'ought' with 'may' in (ME1) means that an action being corre...82%Indexing 'ought' to different ends fails as an analysis of moral oblig...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    But, as Russell plainly believes, there is a subject of debate between them, which means that relativistic readings of “good” and “bad” must (at least sometimes) be wrong. A similar problem afflicts his own subsequent analyses of “ought” and “right”. Since their “oughts” are indexed to different ends, it seems that when the Nazi says “We ought to bomb London” and the pacifist says “Nobody ever ought to bomb anything” they are not contradicting one another, though it is as clear as daylight that

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective