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.