Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Every IS implies an OUGHT

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

This is based on a discussion we had in "Chat" tonight. I figured it would be a good topic to post.

The bottom-line question is: what exactly does Rand mean by the following quote: (in my copy of VoS, it's the 10th page of Chapter-1, in the paragraph that begins with the words "A being who does not..."):

every "is" implies an "ought."
Again, in Fact vs. Value, Dr. Peikoff says that "[e]very proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact", but also goes on to say that "every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment".

To say that every "ought" is derived from some "is"... that's clear enough (to an Objectivist). Things are good for me or bad for me, not because of some subjective whim, but because of some facts of reality. However, why would every "is" be relevant to my life? Does every fact imply a value-judgment of either good or bad?

For instance, does the composition of some remote star imply anything good or bad (any ought)? What about whether a particular train in some distant country runs on time? What about whether it is raining in Sydney today? What about the fact that there are nine planets in our solar system (or is that eight now)? You get the idea.

Is Rand saying that every fact in the universe affects one's life, even if it only does so in a negligible way? Or, is Rand saying that every "is" implies an "ought" for somebody, even if not for me? If everything implies an ought, where is the place for optional values?

Pause here to consider your own answer.

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----

After discussing this to and fro, here's how I'd re-write my interpretation.

The main idea here is not that every unknown fact in the universe has some bearing on my life. The main idea is that, in my life, I cannot tear apart facts from evaluation. I do not read this as saying that I have to decide "good" or "bad" for each and every fact, only that I have to go through that process. In other words, a fact entails a moral evaluation, but that evaluation can end up as "good", "bad" or "not relevant to my life". In the last case (i.e. not relevant) I am no longer interested in the fact, and further pursuit of would be "knowledge for knowledge's sake".

To frame it differently, when I face an "is", I can evaluate it, to end up with an ought, but that does not imply that my only two options are "ought to avoid" or "ought to value". To take Peikoff's gravity example, it could be more complex: ought not to fall off this cliff (from the "bad" side), or "ought to harness it to save fuel on the way down (from the "good" side). Also, I might look at some new fact and decide that I ought not to pursue it further, because it is of not relevance (so, it is neutral to my life).

Or, does Objectivism term this last ("to be ignored") type "non-value", thus classifying it as "bad", which would explain the "good" or "bad" terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement doesn't mean "the grasp of every fact of reality should lead to a moral evaluation of that fact" but rather "the grasp of every fact of reality implies, when viewed in the context of the rest of your knowledge, a certain, objective course of action". This would cover all of your examples: The grasp of the fact that you are at a cliff and gravity will cause you to fall to your death implies that you should not step over the edge of the cliff, the grasp of the fact that you can harness the energy of gravity to conserve fuel, when viewed in the context of the fact that fuel is limited and costly, implies that you should investigate methods of harnessing the energy, and the grasp of the fact that a certain star in a distant galaxy varies its intensity at a constant rate, when grasped in the context of the fact that the fact has no real relevance to your life, implies that you should put no more thought into the matter unless you desire some sort of lay academic grasp of the knowledge for the sake of the pleasure of grasping knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement doesn't mean "the grasp of every fact of reality should lead to a moral evaluation of that fact" but rather "the grasp of every fact of reality implies, when viewed in the context of the rest of your knowledge, a certain, objective course of action".
I agree. To clarify, I used "moral evaluation" above in the sense of "deciding what one ought to do".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the statement "every is implies an ought":

The statement doesn't mean "the grasp of every fact of reality should lead to a moral evaluation of that fact" but rather "the grasp of every fact of reality implies, when viewed in the context of the rest of your knowledge, a certain, objective course of action".

But that is what making a moral evaluation of the facts of reality means. In Objectivism, one would not make an evaluation of a fact (relate it to one's life and values) and not take a course of action.

For an active consciousness, understanding existence is paramount, because it is only by understanding existence that one can decide on that course of action once one relates that fact to one's life (and decide if it is for your life or against your life).

Even distant stars can be evaluated in this manner. For example, according to modern cosmological theories, the entire solar system came about because a super nova exploded light years away billions of years ago. In fact, according to that theory, all of the elements heavier than hydrogen, helium, and carbon arose because of that supernova explosion -- where much of those elements were formed. That explosion residue then accelerated out into space eventually crashing into a big clump of gas, causing pressure waves that lead to higher densities, that eventually collapsed into our solar system. So, from this perspective, we can say that it was good that the super nova exploded.

Likewise, modern evolutionary theory states that it was primarily due to gamma rays and cosmic rays that life evolved; and these came from distance stars -- even gamma ray bursters which are in other galaxies! So, in that sense, one can say that it is good that those distance stars and gamma ray bursters exist.

Regarding trains running on time in distant countries; well, we live in a global economy, so distant trains and transport ships running on time is one reason we have goods from other countries that are affordable. So, from that perspective, we can say that it is good that efficiency is regarded as a value even for far off counties.

The universe is one, and eventually every fact is relatable to every other fact. An active consciousness will understand this, and so facts become important because it may be difficult to tell what fact will influence one's life and when. And it is only by evaluating those facts that one can relate them to one's life by man's life as the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on the question. I think the concept "ought" needs to be scrutinized. To begin with, and given my belief that Rand argues on a "first things first" basis, the first thing she says on the ought topic (p. 18) is "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." So "ought" is "existence" plus "value". My initial objection to the strong statement "every is implies an ought" stems from not having tried to give a non-circular definition of "ought", so I'd come up with "ought refers to obligation" (which is defined in terms of what you ought to do), or else a description of what specifically I ought to do and not the concept "ought" itself. I now conclude that "ought" refers to the metaphysical conditions necessary for the existence of a being. Thus a being ought to eat, since eating is necessary to existence. A fish ought to be in water because that's necessary for it to get oxygen; and a man ought to not breathe water, because that will cause his non-existence. So yeah, every "is" implies an "ought".

I don't think that "ought" is defined in terms of what you know or admit, it is simply defined in terms of what is. Bacteria and trees are living entities and for them there is an ought, but they clearly have no knowledge. Given that chlorine gas is fairly poisonous for man to breathe, I think that you ought not to breathe the gas in the pink cylinder (dunno what color is actually used) even if you don't know that it'll hurt you.

Is there any such thing as "neutrality" in terms of whether an "is" is a good "is" or a bad "is"? If good and bad are opposites, I don't see how a thing that is, in fact, not good is anything other than bad. But I don't pretend to actually be able to make correct identifications on all facts. Thus every "is" implies an "ought", but not not every "ought" implies a "recognizes". This, IMO, is where the is-implies-ought equation seems to run astray. Where I differ from SN's view, I think, is that the things that seem to be neutral are ones where you simply do not know enough to be able to say whether it's good or bad. For example I don't know if an explosion on Raxicoricofallapatorius is good or bad for me. I'm not disinterested in having the answer, I simply don't have any way of getting the answer, and I'd have to trade in some major values in terms of free time in order to know the answer. So a seemingly neutral value is an undetermined value.

I think the underlying problem in terms of man's actions is interestingly complex. You cannot evaluate a fact without grasping it; there are many facts to be grasped; gaining knowledge requires action; you cannot perform infinitely many actions all at once. Therefore you must decide what you learn first; to do this, in an existence-enhancing fashion, means you must be able to evaluate the significance of two possible facts (e.g. the runaway truck vs. the leaky pen). By iterated consideration of the known facts, you form a partial evaluation of good or bad, so that you know more immediately that the runaway truck (either your truck or one aimed at you or your child) is a clearer evil than the leaky pen, which directs your attention to the truck. Faced with a different context where you read in Science News that there was an explosion detected on Raxicoricofallapatorius, and then you notice that your pen is leaking, the pen problem is more deserving of your attention. I don't think that the explosion is irrelevant to my life, I just think that there are other things that are more relevant to my life because I have a better chance of learning the facts required to make the evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was noodling on this topic last night, and went back to Fact and Value as well to try to see if I could integrate anything into my previous position, which I still hold. David brought up some interesting points as well, and I thought I'd add some observations.

The question as I understand it is what is the status of seemingly "useless" information to the Objectivist relationship between Fact and Value. I continue to think that the particular magnitude of a value judgement associated with a fact is less important than the fact that the value judgement is a necessary extension of the fact, as such. That the fact implies the value judgement and that values (as per Peikoff in F&V) "are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relations to the choice to live."

So if one is able to show that the magnitudes of value judgements are in fact variable, that is, some things are more valuable than others, that their relationship to ones survival are more important than others; That fact in an of itself opens up the possiblity of relatively useless information. It doesn't matter whether the information is 0.0000001% useful or 0% "useful". That in my book is as good as useless, and in fact already implies some oughts of it's own based upon what David has said.

So I looked around just to see if I could see things that would provide inductive evidence of such a situation. I came up with two things that seem to provide some evidence for the idea that "useless" information does not conflict with the O idea of Fact and Value.

a. the concept of justice

b. the price mechanism in markets

In both of these contexts, the magnitude of the value of something is variable. However, the need and requirement to judge in relation to man's life is absolute, in every case. One considers worth and price in every buy decision. In some cases worth is much higher than price, and so the ought is to buy. In some it is reverse and so ought is to not buy. BUt there are grades of this, and the ought is strong or weak depending on this analysis. And we know that there are value judgements in markets that lead to indifference among choices. THis does not however negate the idea that an evaluation in context is critical.

Same is true when looking at justice. The magnitude of the "earned" varies, but the need to evaluate does not. We can look at punishment and reward systems in any facet of life to understand that the magnitude varies, but the fact that a judgement was made to be able to assign a magnitude does not.

So to me, the idea of a "useless" fact does not in the least bother me with regard to Fact and Value. Evaluations are made that result in a magnitude of value, and that is what Peikoff is referring to in Fact and Value.

Is there any such thing as "neutrality" in terms of whether an "is" is a good "is" or a bad "is"? If good and bad are opposites, I don't see how a thing that is, in fact, not good is anything other than bad. But I don't pretend to actually be able to make correct identifications on all facts. Thus every "is" implies an "ought", but not not every "ought" implies a "recognizes". This, IMO, is where the is-implies-ought equation seems to run astray. Where I differ from SN's view, I think, is that the things that seem to be neutral are ones where you simply do not know enough to be able to say whether it's good or bad. For example I don't know if an explosion on Raxicoricofallapatorius is good or bad for me. I'm not disinterested in having the answer, I simply don't have any way of getting the answer, and I'd have to trade in some major values in terms of free time in order to know the answer. So a seemingly neutral value is an undetermined value.

This is a really fundamental point, but I'm not sure that the distinction between neutral and of very little positive value is the important one. What you have pointed out is that the process of evaluation is not costless. Therefore, epistemologically, the ought that is implied by every fact is the mechanism to evaluate such facts. As you've said this is iterative, and the elimination from consideration of a seemingly useless fact early on in the iterations is in fact a valid ought. That is certain facts, even though you don't know all there is to know about them, in a proper process should not warrant the same level of consideration as others, and eliminating them early from consideration may actually be the proper valid mechanism of evaluting them.

You say you are not disinterested, but at least you are less interested than in spending time on other facts, yes? The whole idea of necessitating motivation as part of effective communication is in fact a recognition of the fact that people rightly consider those things that they believe are more relevant to their own contexts.

I would take issue with your statement of "not being disinterested" so maybe you can help me understand your lingering interest and what value you place on that fact. If Snerd tells me there's been an explosion on a remote planet, it's not that I'm interested at all, but that based upon my context and the evaluation I've made, I'm completely uninterested in pursuing that fact any farther as it relates to my flourishing. That is, the ought for a useless fact is that one should not waste time on it until such time as its relevance is apparent. The little bit of curiousity I might have about it might warrant pursuing it as part of a casual discussion over coffee, but not in any other capacity, and really not as an end in itself apart from some other goal (let's say the enjoyment of pleasant, stimulating conversation with someone I value). As Peikoff says in F&V, "Cognition apart from evaluation is purposelessness; it ecomes the arbitrary desire for "pure knowledge" as an end in itself."

This also integrates with things I see around me, especially as it deals with motivation. I find the ruthless expunging of useless information a trait that is of value, and especially apparent with those who place a high value on their time. One of the tidbits that I learned in business school (and it goes to the above discussion on motivation as well) was the use of the "Executive Summary". That is, in any communication "upward", the summary, the punchline if you will, should be summarized on page 1, in the first minutes of a dialogue, and in as essentialized form as possible. This is because good businessmen don't want their time wasted. They anger at it, rightfully so (that is justifiably)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example I don't know if an explosion on Raxicoricofallapatorius is good or bad for me. I'm not disinterested in having the answer, I simply don't have any way of getting the answer, and I'd have to trade in some major values in terms of free time in order to know the answer. So a seemingly neutral value is an undetermined value.

Well, this seems like a good way of understanding the issue of value to whom and for what. To you, the value of an explosion on Raxicoricofallapatorius is indeterminate, in the sense that you don't know if it is good for you or bad for you. But I think indifference is itself a type of value evaluation. You are not indifferent to facts per se, just this particular fact (and possibly many others) because you don't know what it will do for your life.

However, to the scientist who discovered the explosion on Raxicoricofallapatorius, such a discovery could make or break his career qua scientist. Both because he was able to detect it and because he could seek the cause of the explosion and write yet another paper on the subject.

There was a time when the discovery of asteroids whirling about in space was like this; nobody really cared, except for the scientists who discovered them. Just as the discovery of Objectivism, a new philosophy, seems like an uninteresting discovery to many people of the world.

However, with the discovery that it was a large asteroid that struck the earth millions of years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, even the public is getting a bit more interested in asteroids. Being good for you or bad for you has a lot to do with the context of one's knowledge. Since asteroids can strike the earth bringing untold disaster, it is good that someone is keeping an eye on them.

I'm sure there are many facts in your profession that I would be ho-hum about -- to me they aren't important. Likewise, there are many facts of my profession that would be ho-hum to you.

The point is that one has to have an active enough of a consciousness to be able to identify the fact and then relate it to one's life.

I went through a major disaster in my life a few years ago, primarily brought on by others, but I was able to recover, in part, by watching cosmological shows on television. To me, it was important for me to get back in touch with facts; facts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the disaster so that the disaster became less metaphysical in stature. In other words, I had to retrieve the benevolent universe premise from this disaster. Existence per se didn't care what happened to me, but existence per se had nothing to do with the disaster, either. It was still there and was spectacular enough that I re-gained the desire to continue to live my life instead of just giving up.

I even wrote a poem about this many years ago.

So, the point is that being factually oriented is, in and of itself, life promoting to an active consciousness -- it is what gets that type of consciousness active again, after a disaster, and even as a normal every day function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still thinking about this but I have few comments.

A fish ought to be in water because that's necessary for it to get oxygen; and a man ought to not breathe water, because that will cause his non-existence. So yeah, every "is" implies an "ought".

I am certain that the statement "Every is implies an ought" refers to a living consciousness. The term ought can only be used in connection with free choices - only in presence of a negative choice-potential. It is a principle of morality.

Therefore this may not apply:

I don't think that "ought" is defined in terms of what you know or admit, it is simply defined in terms of what is. Bacteria and trees are living entities and for them there is an ought, but they clearly have no knowledge.

(bold mine)

So in this context, saying that values inhere in reality independent of a relationship to a valuer (without his identification) would be an assertion of an intrinsicist conception of value, no? Moral value significance necessarily involves a relationship between a fact and it's identifier as the judgment of value is based on his chosen ultimate goal.

re: neutral v.s. very little positive value

Didn't Rand say somewhere that an infinite regression towards a nonexistent is an epistemological impossibility? I am thinking that values can not be this unclear to a conscious being.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in this context, saying that values inhere in reality independent of a relationship to a valuer (without his identification) would be an assertion of an intrinsicist conception of value, no?
The values definitely do have "a relationship" to the valuer, but they can be values without his identification of them. They can be values in this sense: they will further his ends. Given his ends (whether life as a standard, or something else), the question "what will further these ends" is an "is" question rather than an "ought" question.

(As a caveat, the term value is used in two senses. In one of the senses, something is a value in the sense that someone values it. In the other sense, something is a value because it actually fulfills some end. The context of the discussion here would imply the second.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The values definitely do have "a relationship" to the valuer, but they can be values without his identification of them. They can be values in this sense: they will further his ends. Given his ends (whether life as a standard, or something else), the question "what will further these ends" is an "is" question rather than an "ought" question.

(As a caveat, the term value is used in two senses. In one of the senses, something is a value in the sense that someone values it. In the other sense, something is a value because it actually fulfills some end. The context of the discussion here would imply the second.)

Yes. Not sure what I was thinking with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position at this point is that certain facts necessarily have value significance but I still don't see how every fact does. I can give many examples of facts which bear no significance on my choice to live.

If a given fact has no value significance to you, then you ought to move on and pursue those facts that are valuable to you while avoiding those facts which are detrimental to you. In this sense, even an insignificant facts implies an ought.

It would be foolish (non-rational) to treat every fact as equally important to you as those facts which are, in fact, by your judgement, actually important to you. Likewise, it would be foolish (non-rational) to treat every fact as equally dangerous to yourself as the one that actually are dangerous to yourself.

I do agree with you, however, that value significance in this context means the conscious judgement of something via a rational, volitional consciousness. Since bacterium don't have any volition, and therefore have no choice to decide, there is no ought for them in the human sense. One can say that such and such an environment is bad for them, by their life as the standard; but one couldn't say then if that is the case they ought to go somewhere else -- because they don't have that choice or that capability. They might actually attempt to move to a new location, but to them it is not the power of a consciousness judging that they ought to move.

Every is implies an ought includes the fact that one ought to evaluate the fact -- i.e. one ought to decide, by man's life as the standard, if it is for your life or against your life. If it is neither very much for your life nor very much against your life, then you can decide not to bother with it; but that would be in the moral form of an ought: One ought to ignore it (at least until one gets more information).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certain that the statement "Every is implies an ought" refers to a living consciousness. The term ought can only be used in connection with free choices - only in presence of a negative choice-potential. It is a principle of morality.
I'm not persuaded that this is right: as I said, the main difficulty is establishing what "ought" entails. Rand's discussion of "ought" in TOE is very restricted -- just two sentences. Returning to the first one, "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do," and the fact that she says "living entity" and not "man", is in my opinion sufficient evidence that she was not claiming that the is-ought connection applies only to man (the being with free choice). However, it remains a fact that man alone can actually freely do something about the is-ought relationship, whereas beasts are just stuck with what they do, regardless of whether that is optimal in terms of what "ought", for them. So when a polar bear gets too close to a reindeer, it's correct to say "That reindeer ought to start running", which recognises the fact of existence that reindeers are much better runners that polar bears and polar bears are nasty carnivores who like to eat reindeer. Or, "That polar bear ought to be quieter so that it can sneak up on the reindeer".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this quote from The Objectivist Ethics is more specific:

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought'."

I don't think there can be an ought for a living entity with an automatic code of values.

Rand also used term evil (normally only applying to morally bad) to express what is naturally bad for a lower organism. In both cases (using those terms toward lower organisms) I consider that a metaphorical meaning - whereas when talking about a human being capable of rational choices her meaning was literal.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...