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.
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.