Mostly agreed—this argument fails to bridge (or even acknowledge) the is-ought gap, and it relies on very common (but probably not truly universal) experiences. I also am sad that it is based on avoidance instincts (“truly sucks”) rather than seeking anything.
That said, it’s a popular folk philosophy, for very good reasons. It’s simple enough to understand, and seems to be applicable in a very wide range of situations. It’s probably not “true” in the physics sense, but it’s pretty true in the “workable for humans” sense.
There’s probably a larger gap here than, say newton to einstein for gravity, but it’s the same sort of distinction.
We could steelman the part about the is-ought gap: People look at the question of “what should be done” as if they are outside the universe. (As if they are talking about what should happen in some movie, especially a movie that no one is watching.) But they are not really outside, they only imagine that.
Mostly agreed—this argument fails to bridge (or even acknowledge) the is-ought gap, and it relies on very common (but probably not truly universal) experiences. I also am sad that it is based on avoidance instincts (“truly sucks”) rather than seeking anything.
That said, it’s a popular folk philosophy, for very good reasons. It’s simple enough to understand, and seems to be applicable in a very wide range of situations. It’s probably not “true” in the physics sense, but it’s pretty true in the “workable for humans” sense.
There’s probably a larger gap here than, say newton to einstein for gravity, but it’s the same sort of distinction.
We could steelman the part about the is-ought gap: People look at the question of “what should be done” as if they are outside the universe. (As if they are talking about what should happen in some movie, especially a movie that no one is watching.) But they are not really outside, they only imagine that.