For instance, I want more money—which is widely regarded as being instrumental.
Oughts and wants are not mutually exclusive in their first-order desirability. You ought to do what you want is a basic axiom of volition. That implies that you also want what you ought. Yet a distinction, if minor, between ought and want is that the former is often a second-order desire as it is instrumental to the latter primary goal.
Wants are fairly straighforwads, but oughts are often tangled up with society, manipulation and signalling. You appear to be presuming some other definition of ought—without making it terribly clear what it is that you are talking about.
Wants are fairly straighforwads, but oughts are often tangled up with society, manipulation and signalling.
When it comes to goals then in a sense an intelligent agent is similar to a stone rolling down a hill, both are moving towards a sort of equilibrium. The difference is that intelligence is following more complex trajectories as its ability to read and respond to environmental cues is vastly greater than that of a stone. And that is the reason why we perceive oughts to be mainly a fact about society, you ought not to be indifferent about the goals of other agents if they are instrumental to what you want.
“Ought” statements are subjectively objective as they refer to the interrelationship between your goals and the necessary actions to achieve them. “Ought” statements point out the necessary consistency between means and ends. If you need pursue action X to achieve “want” Y you ought to want to do Y.
Oughts are instrumental and wants are terminal. See my comments here and here.
Disagree—I don’t think that is supported by the dictionary. For instance, I want more money—which is widely regarded as being instrumental.
Maybe you need to spell out what you actually meant here.
Oughts and wants are not mutually exclusive in their first-order desirability. You ought to do what you want is a basic axiom of volition. That implies that you also want what you ought. Yet a distinction, if minor, between ought and want is that the former is often a second-order desire as it is instrumental to the latter primary goal.
Wants are fairly straighforwads, but oughts are often tangled up with society, manipulation and signalling. You appear to be presuming some other definition of ought—without making it terribly clear what it is that you are talking about.
When it comes to goals then in a sense an intelligent agent is similar to a stone rolling down a hill, both are moving towards a sort of equilibrium. The difference is that intelligence is following more complex trajectories as its ability to read and respond to environmental cues is vastly greater than that of a stone. And that is the reason why we perceive oughts to be mainly a fact about society, you ought not to be indifferent about the goals of other agents if they are instrumental to what you want.
“Ought” statements are subjectively objective as they refer to the interrelationship between your goals and the necessary actions to achieve them. “Ought” statements point out the necessary consistency between means and ends. If you need pursue action X to achieve “want” Y you ought to want to do Y.
Again, whether you ought to do what you want depends on what you want.
Can you demonstrate that what you just said is true?
EDIT: And perhaps provide a definition of “ought”?