Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
What is the relationship between "what ought to be" and "what will be?" 2017-03-14 03:51:58 Post No. 9237179
[Report] Image search: [Google]
What is the relationship between "what ought to be" and "what will be?" 2017-03-14 03:51:58 Post No. 9237179
[Report] Image search: [Google]
What is the relationship between "what ought to be" and "what will be?"
Anonymous
2017-03-14 03:51:58
Post No. 9237179
[Report]
Is and ought are independent, but what is and what will be are determined by behavior. Behavior is dictated by our intentions and predilections, which have some connection to ought. What's that relationship?
Or am I entirely wrong? If so, can someone explain how and direct me to texts so that I will shut up and stop humiliating myself?
>>
The connection between intentions and predilections on one hand, "ought" on the other, is not so obvious. If I understand you correctly, intentions and predilections will mean something like "I want to...", "I will probably...". However, this has nothing to do with "ought", which only means that, morally speaking, I "should" do this or that.
Google the famous passage where Hume says "'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." I can't remember where it's from exactly, but basically it says that my behavior only depends on "intentions and predilections" and reason itself is absolutely unable to determine any other "moral" behavior. There is no "ought" at all, at least strictly speaking.
>>
>>9237179
Still independent. "Will be" is just the future tense of "is."
>>
>>9237206
What "is" in the future has some connection to what we do now. What we do now has some connection to what we think we ought to be doing. What we think we ought to be doing and what we ought to be doing are independent because what we ought to be doing doesn't exist or is unknown.
Right?
>>
>>9237232
>What "is" in the future has some connection to what we do now.
Probably, even if, from a humian point of view, it"s debatable.
>What we do now has some connection to what we think we ought to be doing.
Alright
>What we think we ought to be doing and what we ought to be doing are independent because what we ought to be doing doesn't exist or is unknown.
Yeah. So what you're poiting out is that our ideas about what we should (and there's nothing we "should do", however we have ideas about it) are somehow connected to our "intentions and predilections", right ? Well yeah, and that's probably what Hume develops when he addresses morality. For some reason, my feelings and experience lead me to assert that "this is good" or "that should be done" or "such an action should be forbidden". I don't think you're wrong here.
>>
>>9237179
Indeed, and Hume examines our passions and behaviours to make this link.
Just stop focusing on this small non-issue of his philosophy and read his book already.
>>
>>9237209
Would that it were so.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1