[MD] A Science of Morals

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ham, Matt, all

> Contrary to Steve's (Harris's?) FACT #8, no "ought" an be
> derived from "is", and ideological attempts to do so -- e.g.,
> authoritarianism, collectivism, socialism, egalitarianism -- demean human
> freedom.

Steve:
Harris complains that your "no ought can be derived from is" is
wielded as a dogma. This may have never been done, but is it true that
it simply cannot be done?

I think Harris's nine facts reduce to this:

(1) Suppose X is a practice that produces the worst possible misery
for everyone.
(2) X ought to be avoided.

Harris's argument is basically that anyone who does not follow this
logic doesn't understand what "ought" means. In other words, if (2)
did not follow from (1), then "ought" would be completely meaningless.
I suppose for the positivists, "ought" was indeed "meaningless" or
"non-cognitive babble" or "preferences without foundation," but it was
demonstarted that the positivist's criteria for meaningfulness by
their own standards were meaningless. Certainly none of us would try
to take the positivist's out for Harris's claim. So for us MOQers who
do think that "ought" has meaning, what meaning can this word have if
it can be intelligible to say that the worst possile misery for
everyone ought not be avoided?

Has this argument been attemoted by philosophers of the past?

Best,
Steve