...but why can't you derive an ought from an is?

because you ought to shut the fuck up faggot

>>9129026
Take e.g. "If I'm thirsty, I ought to drink." Surely, I mean "I want to drink," because I could contrive any number of circumstances where the seemingly "logical" former phrase becomes the opposite of what I want to do. For instance, dysentery.

Or you could just, you know, actually read Hume

>>9129031
Um, rude?

Moral realism.

Anyone who unironically argues for Hume's sceptic position is a turbopseud.

>>9129063
Have you actually read Treatise of Human Nature you dumb faggot? Hume himself derives and ought from an is.

File: wittgenstein silence.jpg (79KB, 943x1000px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 943x1000px

>>9129073
dumb question. Failed to specify criteria of terms. Failed to understand the criteria of those terms in the first place, or else one could easily look to their definitions for an answer on their differences.

>>9129095
>moral realist
>calls nonrealist a turbopseud

>>9129095
That's my point dildo-drinker. You have to be incredibly specific with your premises in order to properly use an "ought."

Did you actually read my post? Or do you just like calling people dumb faggots?

>muh moral realism
No. Why don't you give me all of your axioms, and I'll tell you why your "morality" is a pile of hogshit