The ontological importance of the gap between is and ought<\/p>\n
I have finally appreciated the positive significance of Hume\u2019s observation that we cannot logically derive an \u201cought\u201d claim from an \u201cis\u201d claim; not even “is” claims about God. Even though this gap showed the independence of morality from facts, it still seemed mostly a troublesome problem of justifying moral claims. For it is deep seated in human moral reasoning to back-up claims about what ought to be done by reference to facts. However, now that I have begun the fundamental philosophic task of characterizing the Transcendent as the moral authority, I appreciate that the independence of morality from fact is of more value for metaphysics than it is a disvalue for epistemology.<\/p>\n
I intend to use the structure of my model of morality as based on authority to rationalize characterizing the Transcendent as a moral authority. If I am successful, I propose that I have constructed a model of morality as being based on Divine Commands. As I noted in the previous post, a phase in this construction of a model of morality as based on the Transcendent is showing that morality, which is immanent, is independent of anything else in what is immanent. Showing independence from fact is the major step in showing independence of morality. <\/p>\n
Showing this independence is required to establish that morality is directly dependent for its existence on the Transcendent. If morality is directly dependent on the Transcendent it becomes plausible that we can rationalize some characterizations of the Transcendent as what it would be like to be why such-and-such feature of morality exists.<\/p>\n
I doubt that Hume would be happy with a philosopher using his logical observation that we cannot derive \u201cought\u201d from \u201cis\u201d to make a case for Divine Command morality.
\n.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The ontological importance of the gap between is and ought I have finally appreciated the positive significance of Hume\u2019s observation that we cannot logically derive an \u201cought\u201d claim from an \u201cis\u201d claim; not even “is” claims about God. Even though this gap showed the independence of morality from facts, it still seemed mostly a troublesome … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span> “Is”\/”ought” Gap in Support of Authoritarian Morality<\/h4>\n