tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111442846613049168..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Fact-Value GapRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-73940692188906587422016-04-07T13:30:22.505-04:002016-04-07T13:30:22.505-04:00Enjoyed your article: "It seems clear that t...Enjoyed your article: "It seems clear that there is no possible world where P is true yet Q false. That is, P entails Q. The fact/value gap is thus crossed." If human does A --> child suffers. Therefore, humans should not do A. This contains an unrecognized 'because' clause (or a missing premise) that a child suffering at the hands of any natural event is a bad thing (evaluation), and at the hands of a human actor is a morally bad thing. Tooth pulling can cause a child to suffer, and, as an evaluation, that may be a good thing. What science and observation reveals is that humans (and living organisms in general) are evaluative entities, structured to obtain non-teleological objective ends, such as food, a mate, or survival. I wrote this essay (in 1994): <br />http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1974&context=ndlr<br />I appreciate the work you achieved in your post here. Thanks for posting it.<br />c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70276828075554162912011-01-23T22:21:41.066-05:002011-01-23T22:21:41.066-05:00Isn't this problematic because of the implicit...Isn't this problematic because of the implicit use of the 'is/ought' distinction by 'Anonymous' who pretty clearly thinks that the actual way philosophers think (a matter of fact or 'is') is not the way they ought to think (a matter of value or 'ought')? If everything dissolves into culture then we may as well give up; what for example would there be left to be 'ironic' about?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09011488605021169249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1146038838209770142006-04-26T04:07:00.000-04:002006-04-26T04:07:00.000-04:00Is/ought is NOT a philosophical distinction, it’s ...Is/ought is NOT a philosophical distinction, it’s a cultural one. It starts with the separation of the world of value from the world of fact (dualism). It continues with the reduction of value to bare moralistic “oughts”, given under divine command. It is completed with the development of naturalistic science, which uses a hypothetical “objective” or “not-in-the-world” viewpoint to dissect the world of facts without any reference to values.<BR/><BR/>The philosophical distinction is not an innovation, it is just a final diagnostic stage, thick with irony, where the philosopher thinks he has discovered some ineffable truth about the universe. In reality, he is just unaware of the profound cultural changes that have given rise to the fact/value distinction, a distinction which most cultures that have ever existed would find puzzling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com