Is-Ought Problem

Definition

The is-ought problem refers to the challenge of deriving normative statements (what ought to be) solely from descriptive statements (what is). It highlights the difficulty in logically moving from factual premises to moral conclusions without making additional ethical assumptions.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The is-ought problem challenges the ability to derive moral or normative conclusions solely from descriptive, factual premises.
2. It highlights the difficulty in bridging the logical gap between statements of fact and statements of value or obligation.
3. The is-ought problem is closely related to the fact-value distinction, which posits a clear separation between what is the case and what ought to be the case.
4. Attempts to derive 'ought' statements from 'is' statements alone are considered to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
5. The is-ought problem was famously articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who argued that one cannot logically derive an 'ought' conclusion from 'is' premises alone.

Review Questions

• Explain the key aspects of the is-ought problem and how it relates to the fact-value distinction.
  • The is-ought problem refers to the challenge of deriving normative statements (what ought to be) solely from descriptive statements (what is). It highlights the logical gap between statements of fact and statements of value or obligation. This problem is closely tied to the fact-value distinction, which posits a clear separation between what is the case and what ought to be the case. Attempts to derive 'ought' statements from 'is' statements alone are considered to commit the naturalistic fallacy, as articulated by the philosopher David Hume.
• Analyze the implications of the is-ought problem for moral reasoning and the justification of ethical claims.
  • The is-ought problem poses a significant challenge for moral reasoning and the justification of ethical claims. If one cannot logically derive normative statements from purely descriptive premises, it calls into question the ability to ground moral conclusions solely in facts about the world. This raises important questions about the foundations of ethics and the source of moral obligations. The is-ought problem suggests that additional ethical premises or assumptions are required to bridge the gap between what is the case and what ought to be the case, which has significant implications for moral philosophy and the justification of moral claims.
• Evaluate the potential solutions or responses that philosophers have proposed to address the is-ought problem.
  • Philosophers have proposed various responses to the is-ought problem, attempting to address the challenge of deriving normative statements from purely descriptive premises. Some have argued that the is-ought gap can be bridged through the use of conceptual analysis, by demonstrating that certain 'is' statements already contain implicit 'ought' statements. Others have suggested that we can derive 'ought' statements from 'is' statements by appealing to shared human values or intuitions about what is good or right. Additionally, some philosophers have questioned the strict fact-value distinction, arguing that values are in some sense embedded in or inseparable from facts. Ultimately, the is-ought problem remains a significant challenge in moral philosophy, with ongoing debates about the most promising approaches to overcoming this logical gap.

Related terms

Fact-Value Distinction:

The idea that there is a clear separation between statements of fact (what is the case) and statements of value (what ought to be the case).

Naturalistic Fallacy:

The error of inferring what ought to be the case from what is the case, without additional ethical premises.

Hume's Law: The principle that one cannot derive an 'ought' conclusion from 'is' premises alone, as articulated by the philosopher David Hume.