Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics demonstrates that objective and subjective 'ought' claims serve distinct deliberative roles, neither of which can substitute for the other without theoretical loss.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Deliberative roles(describing what objective and subjective claims each do in decision-making): The different jobs or purposes that different types of reasoning play when you're trying to make a decision about what to do.
Methods of Ethics(the main work being referenced): Sidgwick's famous book that explores different ways of thinking about what we morally ought to do—basically a guide to ethical decision-making.
Objective 'ought' claims(contrasted with subjective claims): Statements about what someone should do based on facts or rules that exist independently of what any person thinks or feels (like 'you ought to keep your promises' because it's right in itself).
Sidgwick, Henry(refers to the author being discussed): A 19th-century British philosopher who wrote extensively about ethics and how we should think about right and wrong actions.
Subjective 'ought' claims(contrasted with objective claims): Statements about what someone should do based on their personal desires, feelings, or goals (like 'you ought to study hard' because you want to get into college).
Theoretical loss(what happens if you try to replace one type of claim with the other): When you lose important explanatory power or accuracy in how well your theory explains something by removing or replacing a key part of it.

1 topic