[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Horse [Steve and Craig quoted]  --

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Horse wrote:
> Aren't both ises and oughts based on value judgements and
> how well they fit with what we know?

[Craig]:
> For Searle the Is-Ought gap is the same as the fact/value gap & the 
> descriptive/evaluative gap.

[Steve]:
> Putnam is saying "so what?" We are never in that position of having a 
> bunch of "is" premises and needing to
> derive our very first "ought."

[Craig]:
> If this is right, Putnam misses the point. Whether we NEED to
> or not, CAN we derive an "ought" from an "is"? There might be
> "oughts" which cannot be derived & others which can. Of the latter, CAN 
> they only be derived from "is es".

[Horse]:
> Ises say something about how we believe the world to be
> (or might be) and oughts extrapolate from those beliefs.
> If there is a relationship between ises and oughts then these 
> relationships ought to be examined, not only the ises and oughts 
> themselves and that implies further value judgements.
> It also depends on whether an is is a statment or a question.
> Lots of value judgements to consider but all based on what
> and how we value.

Absolutely.  The question is not "can we derive 'ought' from 'is'?" since, 
unless we cling to religious dogma or some other "moral authority", there is 
no other way to derive it.

"How we value" is the key to human existence.  Indeed, the life-experience 
consists entirely of making and exercising choices based on our sensibility 
to value.  That's because we are the "free agents" of Value -- the 
evaluators and choice-makers of the IS-ness (Essential Value) on which our 
beingness depends.  Fact-gathering and "intellection in pursuit of purpose" 
are a major part of the life process.  Analyzing this process by breaking it 
into evolutionary levels and never-ending patterns is so much sophistry.

But, of course, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Horse.

--Ham