The Is-Ought Problem

Question 1

What is Hume’s Is-Ought Problem?

Answer 1

-Hume’s Is-Ought Problem is the idea that you cannot logically move from statements about what is (facts about the world) to statements about what we ought to do (moral judgments)
-This means you can’t derive moral rules directly from factual observations

Question 2

What does Hume mean by ‘is’ statements?

Answer 2

-“Is” statements are descriptive
-They describe the world as it is using facts and observations
-For example: “Fruit contains vitamins” or “People often lie to avoid consequences.”

Question 3

What does Hume mean by ‘ought’ statements?

Answer 3

-“Ought’ statements are prescriptive
-They express moral judgments about what we should do. For example: “We ought to eat fruit” or “We ought not to lie.”

Question 4

Why does Hume think we cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ (Hume’s guillotine)?

Answer 4

-Because doing so involves a logical gap. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it should be
-For example, just because people do lie, it doesn’t mean lying ought to be morally acceptable
-Hume’s Guillotine is the idea that you cannot derive a moral ‘ought’ from a factual ‘is’. He believed it’s illogical to move from describing the world to prescribing how we should act, unless a moral principle is already included
-As Hume put it, “you cannot derive an ought from an is”This shows there’s a gap between facts and values, and we must be careful not to smuggle in moral conclusions without proper justification

Question 5

How does Hume’s Is-Ought Problem challenge Ethical Naturalism?

Answer 5

-Hume’s Is-Ought Problem shows that Ethical Naturalism makes a flawed logical leap from facts to values. For instance, saying “suffering causes harm” and then concluding “we ought to prevent suffering” only works if we already accept a moral value like “harm is wrong,” which is not a factual claim.
-This challenges the core of Ethical Naturalism, which claims moral truths can be based on natural facts. Hume argues that such moral conclusions rely on hidden value judgements, meaning naturalism isn’t as objective or scientific as it claims to be