Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

critique of Oist ethics (is/ought gap)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts


In this essay, a guy named Patrick O'Neill argues that Rand failed to bridge the is/ought gap.

There are some obviously weak points of reasoning/misrepresentations of Oism in the essay, but the essay basically boils down to a section near the end, which basically is this:

So some criminal does contradictory action. Why is that necessarily bad? How do we get from 'it's contradictory' to 'one ought not do this'? One doesn't follow the other.

I have to agree with him. Rand seems to be on the right track, but at this point, I'm not sure how we get from one to the other.

Whadda y'all think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hume (and this author) are only focused on deduction. You can't get from an 'is' to an 'ought' deductively, Hume's right. Actually you can't get anything into a deductive conclusion without it appearing in a premise. For example, how does one get knowledge about apples? You can't get a conclusion about apples from premises not containing the word apple. In reality, we don't get knowledge of apples from deductive syllogisms. We gain knowledge via induction. Rand crosses the is/ought gap via induction as well. As for why criminality is anti-life, you should search the boards. It's been discussed many many times.

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...