Why define goals as ethics (knowing that definitions are tools that we can use and replace depending on our goal of the moment)? You seem to be saying that ‘ought’ has a structure which can also be used to annihilate humanity or bring about unheard-of suffering. That does not seem to me like a useful perspective.
Seriously, just go and watch “Sorry to Bother You.”
The claim is “any reasonable agent that makes internally-justified ‘is’ claims also accepts ‘ought’ claims”
Not “any ‘ought’ claim that must be accepted by any reasonable agent to make some internally-justified ‘is’ claim is a true ‘ought’”
Or “all true ‘ought’s are derivable from ’is’es”
Which means I am not saying that the true ‘ought’ has a structure which can be used to annihilate humanity.
I’ve seen “Sorry to Bother You” and quite liked it, although I believe it to be overly optimistic about how much science can happen under a regime of pervasive deception.
Do you have a thesis that you argue for in the OP? If so, what is that thesis?
Are you prepared to go down the other leg of the dilemma and say that the “true oughts” do not include any goal which would require you to, eg, try to have correct beliefs? Also: the Manhattan Project.
The first line doesn’t make it clear whether the kind of “ought” you have in mind is a moral “ought”. This seems to be one of the main sources of confusion.
I almost specified, ‘what would it be without the confusing term “ought” or your gerrymandered definition thereof,’ but since that was my first comment in this thread I thought it went without saying.
Why define goals as ethics (knowing that definitions are tools that we can use and replace depending on our goal of the moment)? You seem to be saying that ‘ought’ has a structure which can also be used to annihilate humanity or bring about unheard-of suffering. That does not seem to me like a useful perspective.
Seriously, just go and watch “Sorry to Bother You.”
The claim is “any reasonable agent that makes internally-justified ‘is’ claims also accepts ‘ought’ claims”
Not “any ‘ought’ claim that must be accepted by any reasonable agent to make some internally-justified ‘is’ claim is a true ‘ought’”
Or “all true ‘ought’s are derivable from ’is’es”
Which means I am not saying that the true ‘ought’ has a structure which can be used to annihilate humanity.
I’ve seen “Sorry to Bother You” and quite liked it, although I believe it to be overly optimistic about how much science can happen under a regime of pervasive deception.
Do you have a thesis that you argue for in the OP? If so, what is that thesis?
Are you prepared to go down the other leg of the dilemma and say that the “true oughts” do not include any goal which would require you to, eg, try to have correct beliefs? Also: the Manhattan Project.
It’s very clear that you didn’t read the post. The thesis is in the first line, and is even labeled for your convenience.
The first line doesn’t make it clear whether the kind of “ought” you have in mind is a moral “ought”. This seems to be one of the main sources of confusion.
I almost specified, ‘what would it be without the confusing term “ought” or your gerrymandered definition thereof,’ but since that was my first comment in this thread I thought it went without saying.
Sorry for the misinterpretation. I wrote an interpretation and proof in terms of Fristonian set points here.