The ought-is distinction

Category errors

The is-ought problem is one of the most famous ideas in philosophy, courtesy of none other than David Hume. While he was a man of many qualities, brevity was never one of them. To make matters worse, by virtue of being an eighteenth century Scotsman, his texts are neither translated nor modernized. Altogether, while Hume's ideas tend to be sound, his writings are slightly impenetrable. Exhibit A:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised 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 should be observed and explained; 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. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

It is tempting to summarize, but one must ever keep in mind the humbling words of Bertrand Russel, another great thinker:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Understanding the is-ought problem requires us to pretend that we know nothing at all. It is paramount that we leave all our moral intuitions behind, because we are trying to arrive at moral truths, not to smuggle them in as unstated assumptions. Now, start listing facts: People die when they get shot. If you hit your children, they grow up to be violent.

The is-ought problem is simply a shorthand for pointing out that there is no way to establish an ought from facts of this kind. It is generally very easy to pinpoint the missing ingredient. While people die when they get shot, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't shoot people, unless we grant some other moral principle - that people have a right to live, for instance. This is catastrophic for philosophers who would like to elevate their ethical systems above mere subjectivity, because there is no way to observe an ought. Observations pertain to how the world is, while oughts are fundamentally concerned with preferring one possible future over another.

The is-ought fallacy

Hume contends that value judgments ultimately spring from emotions - that is, various situations cause people to feel different ways, and some of these feelings are subjectively more pleasant than others. Given this sort of ranking of situations by desirability, and also an understanding of how actions lead to outcomes, we have the necessary framework for evaluating choices from a moral persepctive.

It might seem puzzling that the same man who has a guillotine named after him is also one of the pioneers of the ethical system called consequentialism. Did he not prove that it is impossible to establish moral truths? This misunderstanding of what the is-ought distinction really entails can be called the is-ought fallacy.

It is instructive to notice that Hume not only pointed out problems with moral reasoning - he is famous for torpedoing the whole concept of causality by pointing out that we are never truly justified in assuming relations of cause and effect from mere observation. The argument is really not all that different from his guillotine; we can observe what happens, but causal relations can only be inferred, and we are never truly justified in generalizing from a limited set of observations.

It would be patently ridiculous to abandon the idea of cause and effect simply because it cannot be proven with philosophical rigor. In practice, these theories derive their value from whether they help us steer our lives in a direction we like. Similarly, ethical systems have a function - to help people coexist in such a manner that they are individually better off than without it. Ultimately, ethical systems are judged and justified by this functional standard, because people share a tendency to seek away from pain and towards comfort.

The is-ought fallacy is thinking that no progress can be made towards a sound ethical system because of problems related to philosophical epistemology. It is a ridiculous error to make, really, because it requires you to feign ignorance of how societies have developed throughout history.

Argument from unfortunate implications

The is-ought fallacy most often shows up in philosophical discussions, and also in people afflicted with the brain rot called moral relativism - an idea which becomes outright preposterous when you take a functional view of ethics, unless you believe that customs and laws somehow happen to have zero net effect on people's well-being.

There is, however, an idea which is simultaneously more absurd, more commonplace and more dangerous. And that is the reverse category error, reasoning from ought to is. In it's most honest form, it looks like this:

It would be unfair if some people were born smarter than others, and therefore that can't be what happens. People who aren't good with numbers probably have other talents to make up for it, like being good at sports. When some people perform poorly on tests, it must be because our teaching methods don't resonate well with their modes of learning, and because our society doesn't give everybody the same opportunities. If we work towards a fairer society, these injustices will diminish and ultimately disappear.

The first line is hopefully a caricature, while the rest of the paragraph is fairly run of the mill apologist rhetoric. While the example is very appropriate - inborn differences in general aptitude have been established beyond all reasonable doubt - what is important is the form of the argument. Arguing from is to ought is merely philosophically untenable, but concluding from ought to is, on the other hand, is plainly ridiculous. It has the power to magically transform factual differences in outcome, from being an indication that people might be innately different, to proof of social injustice.

Unfortunately, the cognitive failure is not always so openly on display. Educated people know that this is not a defensible mode of reasoning, and thus it winds up buried underneath endless layers of indirection. The data are not entirely conclusive, other possible explanations have not been completely ruled out, even if it were true it would be unfair to own up to it, so on and so forth. Whenever a counterargument is refuted, the goal posts shift.

It would have been ideal to close out with a recipe for undressing this sort of anti-intellectual poison. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. After all, primitive religion such as Christianity thrives in a modern society and is absolutely dependent on this form of thinking - it would be nice if there was a Paradise, it is great that I need but ask forgiveness for my sins, etcetera. Emotional attachment is orders of magnitude too strong to be severed by a single slash of argument.

A shorthand term can be useful, to stay vigilant and to call nonsense out whenever it rears its ugly head. People's minds are rarely changed in a single, forceful u-turn, but rather in a gradual readjustment to new ideas - not as often in the middle of a debate, as in quiet contemplation while doing the dishes.

But most importantly, one should make sure not to fall prey to arguments from unfortunate implications oneself.

The free market of ideas

The First Amendment

Much can be said about the the United States of America - for example the right to bear arms - but one thing they got right was free speech. The First Amendment is so poignant that you should read it yourself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The idea is simple enough - the people are supposed to rule a country and the government only to represent them. The state must absolutely not be allowed to limit public discourse, because this undermines one of the mechanisms by which the people make sure their representatives are serving them, rather than their own interests.

The Second Amendment

From this perspective, even the Second Amendment makes a fair bit of sense. It is reproduced here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is borne out of the exact same fear as the First - that the state could upend the relationship of power between itself and the people it is supposed to serve. Just like the First concerns the flow of information and ideas, the Second concerns physical power. In the context of the late eighteenth century, when a majority of all people lived under the tyranny of a ruling class and a rifle was state of the art military technology, the Second Amendment was meant as an insurance policy against dictatorship.

Vigilante censorship

While the First Amendment deserves as much praise as can be heaped on it, somehow it has also given rise to a very dangerous misunderstanding. In thesis form:

The First Amendment is not synonymous with free speech, nor is it the definition of free speech. The First Amendment deals with the special case of the state censoring speech - as such, given a a government with any power at all, it is a necessary requirement for free speech, but not a sufficient one. There can be other forces limiting speech and they need not be harmless.

Suppose that a publisher declines to print a book, or that a bookstore refuses to stock it - obviously, privately owned businesses are under no obligation to take any and every idea under their wings. On the contrary, part of the service they provide is separating the wheat from the chaff. There is no way to connect this to the First Amendment, unless the government is pressuring them.

But what if the book happens to be for instance The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and the reason nobody wants to get too closely associated with it is a fear of reprisal from offended Muslims? One could perhaps argue that the real problem in this case would be that of terrorism - as important as free speech might be, personal safety would be the real protagonist in this example.

So let us leave aside the very real killings in the wake of Rushdie's book for a moment. Let us pretend that there is no reason whatsoever to expect violent response to publishing this hypothetical book, but that it indeed is deemed incredibly offensive by some or other interest group. Let us pretend that the book was met with large scale boycotts - of the book itself, of course, but also of its publisher at large and every bookstore willing to put it on display.

Intellectual autonomy

It is easy to imagine how this sort of vigilante censorship can contain an idea, as if though it were a dangerous pathogen. In isolated cases, some sort of Streisand effect might counteract the effects of the boycott. The most loyal customers will surely find ways to work their way around it, perhaps by buying self-published e-books. But nonetheless, the tenacious interest group will sometimes find their tactics effective - a loss of publicity will keep the book away from the undecided middle, translations will be bad business and, ultimately, authors will shy away from writing them in the first place. And in a vicious circle, the boycott tactics will be used ever more eagerly.

It is vital to identify the key problem in this mess of hypotheticals which aren't merely hypothetical. For instance, there is nothing wrong with boycotts in and of themselves. But given that there is a reason to hold free speech sacred, that it provides something of value to society, there is surely something wrong when businesses and individuals alike cease to speak what they perceive as true and rather parrot those ideas that gain them approval.

The problem with censorship - regardless of whether the government gets involved - is that it corrupts the marketplace of ideas. Most distinctively, it strips people of their intellectual autonomy. It is true that nobody has any obligation to agree with others' views - or for that matter, even to listen to them. This is not a free speech issue. But in a society supposed to be tolerant of ideas, every man must be free to listen to an argument if he so chooses, without third parties actively getting it the way to shield him from offensive or dangerous thoughts.

In an ideal society, the response to bad ideas is counter argument. The reason for this is very simple - common sense and the crudest familiarity with history informs us that we can't reliably tell the difference between good and bad ideas. Censorship, by definition, means that somewhere there must be an arbiter or tribunal of truth that we trust to filter out harmful ideas such that the plebeians never have to think about them. Functionally, these people will be outsourcing their good judgement to some supposed experts, whose activities they must remain too ignorant of to scrutinize.

Censorship can only ever be a force of good when all of the following conditions are met:

• The censors act in the public's best interests without abusing their power
• The commoner is more easily seduced by bad ideas than the censors
• The censors' better judgment cannot be conveyed in the form of counter argument

Perverted discourse

While government censorship is the most egregious kind, softer limitations on free speech cause much the same harm. The problem is that truth is such a minor concern for most people that innumerable practical matters trump it. When truth is pitted against the law, violence, threats, economical sanctions or social repercussions, only a precious few idealists are willing to defend it.

This is why we should resist the temptation to escalate disagreement beyond facts and argument. Not only does the dispute disconnect from truth and orient towards more tangible forms of power - simultaneously, people cease to represent themselves truthfully and instead choose to play talking point bingo, because in such a society jobs and connections will depend on your reputation, and those are more pressing demands than a good conscience.

If honesty is lost in the process, it doesn't make much difference whether people are toeing the party line in DDR or doing political correctness yoga in the present day western world. The only solution is a de-escalation of public discourse.

A mission statement

Pornography is a cute word

A blog, of course, cannot be without a constitution - a mission statement of sorts to define its agenda. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a blog at all. The subdomain ought to point you in the the right direction - it's about putting Lady Veritas on display - undressing her, exposing her in a pornographic manner.

Now, pornography is mostly just a cute word that we don't need to dwell too much on, but it does have some very appropriate connotations. As you might know from personal experience or should at least be able to imagine - pornography doesn't leave even a square inch of skin out of view for the sake of propriety.

Pornography has an air of indecency and smuttiness to it - somewhat undeservedly, one must say, because pornographers don't go out of their way to be nasty as a matter of principle. They are mostly trying to make a living, and ultimately their creations reflect market demand. One might not much appreciate the fact that there are people who get off to watching multiple penetrations in sixty high resolution frames per second, but then again - the truth doesn't play well with wishful thinking.

Exposure therapy

This segues nicely into an explanation the title of the blog - Exposure therapy for reality. Most people, it seems, have a developed very sophisticated immune systems to theories, to concepts - even to facts themselves. It is certainly not a modern phenomenon - divorcing one's beliefs from observation is more or less a prerequisite for religiosity, if not the very definition. As such, we can safely say it predates the invention of writing.

Perhaps the most high profile and illustrative example of keeping reality at arm's length goes back to the seventeenth century. A man named Caspar Hofmann was given a demonstration of how the heart circulates blood throughout the body, which was in contradiction with established medical doctrine. Hofmann retorted I see, but I do not believe, which at least signals his detachment from reality rather honestly.

This is but one of many psychological defense mechanisms. The more common one is to taboo topics - dissenting religious views are blasphemous and should not be uttered, much less discussed. For sexual topics, obscene serves the same purpose, and in modern society, labeling an opinion offensive is a great way to put a lid on discussion. Think of the children!

Now is not the time to elaborate on the details of mental self-defense. The ultimate purpose of this blog is to fight this sort of phobic reaction to mere words. That is of course not to say that every claim must be believed or every idea taken as gospel - spiders can indeed be dangerous, but panicking whenever you see one on a TV screen isn't ideal. The idea of exposure therapy is acclimate yourself to something you fear in a safe and controlled environment, so that you are able to stay calm and composed when you have to deal with it in the wild, that is to say outside of the laboratory.

Truth trumps hurt feelings

Notice that there is nothing outrageous about someone thinking seven times six equals fifty. There is no temptation to label this calculation as heresy. A sane response is to point out that seven times seven is forty nine - seven times six ought to be less. Curiously, there seems to be an inverse proportionality between how offensive an idea can be, and how obviously wrong it is.

Consider for a moment that, throughout all of history, the vast majority of discoveries and inventions have been due to men. If this statement of fact isn't enough to inspire indignation, try to also entertain the possibility that perhaps this might be because women in general are less talented than men. There exists no straightforward refutation of this theory - on the contrary, it matches very well with data from a number of different fields, such as computer science, chess and entrepreneurship.

This is not to say it is necessarily true - though it is certainly worth a thorough analysis before one goes down the path of so-called positive discrimination. The mantra of an honest thinker must be that a true, offensive idea is worth understanding, and a false, offensive idea should be met with reasoned counter-argument. Focusing on the truth value rather than a smokescreen of moral indignation is in either case the winning move.

Aurea mediocritas

As motivation, consider that any number of sensible thoughts would have been outright dangerous to utter in public some time ago - that Jesus was just a charlatan, that homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted or that people aren't meaningfully different from animals in a biological sense. It is of course possible that we have recently arrived at the apex of wisdom, that there are no further misunderstandings to correct - it just seems rather unlikely. At the very least, the taboos of today deserve scrutiny.

Keep in mind that there are many ways to go wrong - in the words of John Brunner: There are two kinds of fools. One says, this is old and therefore good. And one says, this is new and therefore better. For all its faults, chronic conservatism is probably a saner position than reflexive contrarianism. Not every conspiracy theory holds true - few of them are even compatible. There is no royal road to truth, only the hard work of incessant thinking.