The Is-Ought Problem and Hume's Guillotine
The is-ought problem, famously articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, addresses a fundamental question in moral philosophy and metaethics. The problem arises when one draws a conclusion about what ought to be from what is. This issue highlights the challenge of deriving ethical statements or prescriptive norms directly from descriptive statements or observations of the natural world.
Origins with David Hume
In his seminal work, A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume observed that many writers make the leap from "is" statements, which describe the world, to "ought" statements, which prescribe how the world should be. He argued that there is a significant gap between the two and that this leap lacks justification. This insight is often referred to as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine, a metaphorical expression suggesting that normative conclusions cannot be severed from empirical premises.
Naturalistic Fallacy
The is-ought problem is closely related to the naturalistic fallacy found within moral philosophy. This fallacy occurs when one attempts to define ethical terms, such as "good," solely in terms of natural properties or facts. The naturalistic fallacy was famously critiqued by G.E. Moore in his work Principia Ethica, where he argued that equating moral properties with natural properties is a mistaken and unjustifiable move.
Impact on Philosophy
The is-ought problem has had a profound impact on philosophical discourse, especially within the domains of ethics and philosophical methodology. It challenges philosophers to clarify the basis upon which ethical theories are founded. The problem underscores the need for additional premises or principles to bridge the gap between descriptive and prescriptive statements.
In metaethics, the is-ought problem suggests limitations on the kinds of arguments that can be constructed when discussing moral facts or values. Concepts like moral rationalism and the categorical imperative proposed by Immanuel Kant are responses to the challenge posed by the is-ought divide.
Modern Interpretations
Various philosophers have attempted to address the is-ought problem with differing approaches. For instance, Ayn Rand sought to resolve the problem by proposing a meta-ethical framework grounded in the nature of human life itself. In contrast, Roberto Mangabeira Unger offered another solution by engaging in a dialogue with both Hume's insights and Kant's moral law.
The discussion of the is-ought problem continues to influence contemporary debates in ethics, reinforcing the enduring nature of Hume's challenge to moral philosophy.