The Is-Ought Problem (Hume): Deriving Moral Values from Facts – A Lecture
(Professor emerges from behind a cloud of dry ice, wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches that are deliberately mismatched. He clears his throat, adjusts his spectacles, and beams at the audience.)
Alright, settle down, settle down! Welcome, my eager little epistemological explorers, to the intellectual Everest that is the Is-Ought Problem! Or, as I like to call it, the Morality Mountain! 🏔️
(He gestures dramatically with a pointer.)
Today, we’re diving headfirst into a philosophical quagmire – a sticky, gooey swamp of logic and ethics – courtesy of one Mr. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher with a penchant for skepticism and a talent for making things delightfully complicated.
(Professor chuckles, then adopts a serious tone.)
This isn’t just some dusty old academic debate, mind you. This is about the very foundations of morality. It’s about how we justify our beliefs about what’s right and wrong, good and evil. It’s about whether you’re justified in judging your neighbor for putting pineapple on pizza! 🍍🍕 (Yes, I went there.)
So, buckle up, buttercups! We’re about to embark on a journey into the heart of the Is-Ought Problem.
I. The Setup: Hume’s Razor-Sharp Observation
Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40), casually dropped a philosophical bombshell. He observed something remarkably simple, yet profoundly disruptive. He noticed that arguments about morality often make a sneaky, unacknowledged leap. They start by describing what is (facts, observations, empirical data) and then abruptly switch to prescribing what ought to be (moral obligations, values, norms).
(Professor leans forward conspiratorially.)
Think of it like this: You’re baking a cake. You start with the ingredients: flour, sugar, eggs. That’s your "is." Then, suddenly, you declare the cake MUST be chocolate! Where did that come from? The ingredients themselves don’t dictate chocolate. You’ve introduced a new element, a preference, a value!
Hume argued that this transition is logically invalid. You can’t logically derive an "ought" from an "is" without introducing some kind of moral premise, some underlying value judgment.
(Professor writes on the whiteboard: "IS ≠ OUGHT" and circles it emphatically.)
He put it rather elegantly (as philosophers are wont to do):
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."
(Professor pauses for dramatic effect.)
In plain English: "Hey, I notice you guys keep talking about what is, and then suddenly you’re telling me what I should do! Where did that ‘should’ come from? Explain yourselves!"
II. Examples to Illustrate the Point
Let’s break this down with some deliciously relatable examples.
Example 1: The Infamous Baby Seals
(Professor projects an image of an adorable, fluffy baby seal onto the screen. The audience collectively "awws.")
Okay, look at this little guy. Fact: Baby seals are cute. Fact: Baby seals are defenseless. Fact: Some people club baby seals for their fur.
(Professor switches to a picture of a seal being clubbed. A collective gasp goes through the audience.)
Now, from these facts, can we logically conclude that "Clubbing baby seals is morally wrong?"
(Professor raises an eyebrow.)
Hume would say: NOPE! 🙅♀️ You can describe the facts all day long. You can detail the brutality, the suffering, the impact on the seal population. But those facts, in themselves, don’t logically entail that it’s wrong.
To get to the "ought," you need to introduce a value judgment, such as "Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong" or "All living creatures have a right to life." That is the missing premise.
(Professor creates a table on the whiteboard.)
| Facts (IS) | Missing Premise (Value Judgment) | Conclusion (OUGHT) |
|---|---|---|
| Baby seals are cute and defenseless. | Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. | Clubbing baby seals is morally wrong. |
| Some people club baby seals for their fur. | All living creatures have a right to life. | We ought to protect baby seals from being clubbed. |
Example 2: The Case of the Starving Children
(Professor projects an image of malnourished children onto the screen. A somber mood descends upon the room.)
Fact: Children are starving in Africa. Fact: We have the resources to help them.
Can we conclude, from these facts alone, that "We ought to send aid to starving children?"
(Professor shakes his head.)
Again, Hume would say, "Not so fast!" You need a value judgment like "It is morally good to alleviate suffering" or "We have a moral obligation to help those in need."
(Professor adds another table to the whiteboard.)
| Facts (IS) | Missing Premise (Value Judgment) | Conclusion (OUGHT) |
|---|---|---|
| Children are starving in Africa. | It is morally good to alleviate suffering. | We ought to send aid to starving children. |
| We have the resources to help them. | We have a moral obligation to help those in need. | We ought to do what we can to prevent starvation. |
Example 3: The Pineapple Pizza Predicament
(Professor projects an image of a pizza adorned with pineapple chunks. The audience shudders in unison.)
Fact: Some people enjoy pineapple on pizza. Fact: Other people find it an abomination.
Can we conclude that "Putting pineapple on pizza is morally wrong?"
(Professor grins mischievously.)
Well, you might feel that way (and I might secretly agree), but Hume would argue that you can’t logically derive that conclusion from the facts. You need a value judgment like "Food should be delicious and not offensive to my palate" or "Tradition should be respected."
(Professor adds a final table.)
| Facts (IS) | Missing Premise (Value Judgment) | Conclusion (OUGHT) |
|---|---|---|
| Some people like pineapple on pizza. | Food should be delicious and not offensive to my palate. | Putting pineapple on pizza is (subjectively) wrong. |
| Others find it an abomination. | Tradition should be respected. | You ought to respect the sanctity of traditional pizza. |
(Professor claps his hands together.)
See the pattern? Facts alone don’t dictate morality. You always need an extra ingredient: a moral principle, a value judgment, a subjective preference.
III. Why Does This Matter? The Implications of Hume’s Guillotine
So, why is this philosophical nitpicking important? Why should you care about Hume’s little observation? Because it has profound implications for how we understand ethics, politics, and even everyday life.
(Professor adopts a more serious tone.)
1. Moral Relativism: Hume’s argument lends support to the idea of moral relativism, the view that moral judgments are relative to a particular culture, society, or individual. If you can’t objectively derive moral truths from facts, then morality might just be a matter of opinion or social convention. 🌍
This doesn’t necessarily mean that all moralities are equally valid. But it does mean that you need to be aware of the underlying values that shape your own moral judgments and be prepared to defend them rationally.
2. The Role of Emotion and Sentiment: Hume himself believed that morality is rooted in our emotions and sentiments. We approve of actions that promote happiness and well-being, and we disapprove of actions that cause suffering and harm. Our moral judgments are ultimately based on our feelings, not on cold, hard logic. ❤️🩹
This doesn’t mean that morality is arbitrary or irrational. Our emotions are shaped by our experiences, our social interactions, and our understanding of the world. But it does mean that reason alone is not enough to motivate moral action. We need to feel something to do something.
3. Justifying Moral Claims: Hume’s problem forces us to be more explicit about the value judgments that underlie our moral claims. We can’t just say "X is wrong" and expect everyone to agree. We need to explain why we think X is wrong, and what values are at stake. 🗣️
This can lead to more productive and nuanced moral debates. Instead of simply shouting slogans at each other, we can focus on identifying the underlying values that we share and the values that we disagree on.
4. The Problem of Naturalistic Fallacy: G.E. Moore later coined the term "naturalistic fallacy" to describe the attempt to define moral terms in terms of natural properties. This is essentially a more formal way of stating Hume’s point. You can’t define "good" in terms of "pleasure" or "happiness" or any other natural property, because there will always be cases where pleasure or happiness is not morally good. 🙅♀️
5. Implications for Science and Ethics: The Is-Ought problem highlights the distinction between descriptive statements (what science aims to provide) and prescriptive statements (what ethics aims to provide). Science can tell us how the world works, but it can’t tell us how we ought to act in the world. 🧪
This doesn’t mean that science is irrelevant to ethics. Scientific knowledge can inform our moral judgments and help us to make better decisions. But it does mean that science can’t replace ethics.
IV. Objections and Responses: Wrestling with the Monster
Of course, Hume’s Is-Ought Problem hasn’t gone unchallenged. Philosophers have been wrestling with this monster for centuries, and there are several objections and responses worth considering.
(Professor paces back and forth, stroking his chin thoughtfully.)
Objection 1: Moral Intuitionism: Some philosophers argue that we have direct moral intuitions, a kind of innate moral sense that tells us what’s right and wrong. We don’t need to derive moral truths from facts, because we already know them intuitively. 💡
Response: Hume would likely argue that these so-called "intuitions" are simply the product of our upbringing, our social conditioning, and our emotional biases. What feels intuitively right to one person might feel intuitively wrong to another. Moral intuitions can be helpful, but they shouldn’t be treated as infallible guides to moral truth.
Objection 2: Moral Realism: Other philosophers argue that moral truths are objective and independent of human opinion. Just as there are objective facts about the physical world, there are objective facts about morality. 🌍
Response: Hume would challenge moral realists to explain how these objective moral facts are related to the natural world. If moral facts are distinct from natural facts, then how can we know them? How can we access them? And how can they motivate us to act?
Objection 3: Contractarianism: Contractarian theories of morality argue that moral rules are those that rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical social contract. Morality is based on mutual agreement and self-interest.🤝
Response: Hume might argue that contractarianism still relies on underlying value judgments, such as the importance of cooperation, fairness, and self-preservation. The fact that rational individuals would agree to certain rules doesn’t necessarily make those rules morally right.
V. Conclusion: Embracing the Complexity
(Professor smiles warmly.)
So, where does all this leave us? Is the Is-Ought Problem a fatal blow to morality? Does it mean that anything goes?
(Professor shakes his head emphatically.)
Not at all! The Is-Ought Problem doesn’t destroy morality; it clarifies it. It forces us to be more thoughtful and reflective about our moral beliefs. It reminds us that morality is not a simple matter of logic and deduction. It’s a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that involves reason, emotion, social norms, and personal values.
(Professor gestures to the audience.)
Embrace the complexity! Don’t be afraid to question your own assumptions and to engage in open and honest moral debate. And always remember: putting pineapple on pizza is a deeply personal and morally ambiguous choice. 🤷♂️
(Professor bows as the audience applauds. He disappears back into the cloud of dry ice, leaving behind a faint smell of philosophy and a lingering sense of intellectual unease.)
(Optional Addition: Discussion Questions for Students)
To further engage with the material, consider these discussion questions:
- Can you think of any real-world examples where the Is-Ought problem is relevant?
- Do you think that morality is ultimately based on reason or emotion?
- Is it possible to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought"? If so, how?
- How does the Is-Ought problem impact our understanding of ethics and politics?
- What are the potential dangers of ignoring the Is-Ought problem?
- What are the potential benefits of being aware of the Is-Ought problem?
- Do you agree with Hume’s assessment? Why or why not? Provide examples to support your answer.
- Can scientific advancements impact our moral "oughts"? Explain how.
- How do different cultures address the Is-Ought problem? Are there common themes?
- Is there such a thing as objective morality, despite the Is-Ought problem? Defend your stance.
