fact value distinction (is ought problem) does it mean feelings does not care about facts?

ProfessionalNEET said:
I generally believe in the fact-value distinction. I'm not sure though it's always the case that "feelings don't care about facts", as feelings can be influenced by facts. I mean, knowing the fact that your (hypothetical) friend died will most likely influence your feelings.

ProfessionalNEET said:

Well one way to go about is to first ask yourself "How would I like to feel?", and then ask yourself "How do I go about feeling that way"? In order to figure how to feel the way you want to feel, you may need to consider facts. For example, if you want to feel the comfort of having a roof over your head, you might want to consider the fact that money may be necessary to acquire housing, as well as the factually-proven ways of acquiring that money. I don't know if that makes any sense.

katsucats said:
No, it does not mean feelings do not care about facts, it means facts do not care about feelings. Or more directly, feelings are not facts.

deg said:


isnt it that we value ethics more implied by this distinction of fact and value?

and ethics or morality comes from the goodness of the heart/feelings?

BlakexEkalb said:


I would say some ethics come from the survival and instinct for humanity to survive and prosper. For example: murder, stealing, and assault are all banned as it infringes on all of what I stated above.

deg said:


yep so you believe in objective morality then? that morality is not man made? or you telling me all that is just an exception to the rule kind of statement since you mention some ethics but not all or most ethics

harm principle is what you said basically too

BlakexEkalb said:


I do believe in some objective morality yes. However, are there exceptions to it? Usually yes, such as if you are being actively attacked. But then again, almost every single rule has some kind of exception. It’s like the Unlimited Rulebook, I said with a posed look.

vuxk said:
I think value is determined by market forces and it would oscillate around the fact. It's not static and could be lower/higher at any given time. To keep it in check, the market participants agree on an upper and lower limit, but occasionally it breaks the limit and so the participants would reverse it back to the tolerable range. That's how I view it.

deg said:


isnt it that we value ethics more implied by this distinction of fact and value?

and ethics or morality comes from the goodness of the heart/feelings?

katsucats said:
We value ethics more than what? Fact? How can ethics be independent from fact? Facts precede ethics. If someone kills someone (fact), it is either right or wrong (ethics). If you devalue whether someone was killed, then there's nothing that would be either be right or wrong.

The Is-Ought distinction only says that these are two different things, where one could not justify value as fact. It does not say whether one is more important than the other.

Auron_ said:
I mean in some sense, a feeling is a fact. It is a fact that you feel that way, lol. Anyway I'm being facetious.

I don't think deeming one as superior to the other is a useful idea, one's feelings tend to be informed by the facts in the world. For instance, what one feels about abortion will be vastly different depending on the fact of whether fetus is sentient or not within the time period at question. Or one's feelings about a company too will differ depending on what their policies are. We as a rule thumb want to have moral rules that are not at odds with our basic intuitions (which are ultimately feelings) such as murder, stealing, rape etc. being wrong. Nobody does formal syllogisms and deductively concludes that such acts are immoral (and nor would you be able to, yup non-cognitivism bla bla bla), but rather we intuitively agree that they be outlawed. It is a fact that a society's well-being hinges upon its ability to validate those feelings (the feeling of not wishing to live in a world where such acts are okay to do) by force of law, so facts and feelings work alongside in this sense.

deg said:


its just that value or ethics cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method so the morality of abortion is very subjective to a lot of people for example

so what ought/should/morals that will be done about a fact is what matters more

deg said:


somewhat true especially in a capitalistic world right now your market value or net worth determines your worth/value in some people like snobs

Maenads said:


I think it is a dreadful mistake to confuse economic value with human worth. Economic value is determined by your own productive efforts in society, while the reciprocal assumption of inherent worth is what allows you to participate in the game to begin with.

On the topic of this thread I don't think it is possible to be factually wrong and morally right. That is only self delusion caused by your own inadequate understanding.

And Shirou Emiya is a mentally corrupted ideologue whose moral code causes him to make dreadful decisions throughout the series

deg said:


still snobs do that kind of value/worth measuring

>factually wrong and morally right

nah Shiro is saying its factually true but not morally right

that statement by Shiro is just elaboration on the main topic that is fact value distinction or is ought problem

deg said:


the classic example of is ought problem is "we are omnivores" thats a fact so we ought/should eat meat but vegetarians disagree so thats where i think value/ethics is more important matter to people

deg said:

>factually wrong and morally right

nah Shiro is saying its factually true but not morally right

that statement by Shiro is just elaboration on the main topic that is fact value distinction or is ought problem

Auron_ said:
values where most people who're not psychopaths will share

Auron_ said:
if those people agree with the fundamental value

deg said:
@katsucats

well im talking about the implication of is ought problem that value is more debated or more important matter to people/society on the problem of what ought/should be done on a fact

if Shiro is not that prime example of that then can you think of another?

katsucats said:
That's just... not an implication of is-ought -- it's not even relevant to is-ought. Never mind. lol I don't think you care. Values matters more than fact? I'm completely bewildered. I have no idea what this might even mean.

deg said:


"fact/value distinction is the thin line between what is truth and what is right"

in other words not every truth is the right thing to do?

katsucats said:
No. Stop taking sentences out of context to suit your grossly misattributed contexts. The Is-Ought Problem explicitly questions what you are trying to do. "Not every truth is... right" -- what does that even mean when truth is categorically different from right?

I'm done with this thread though. Feel free to do whatever you'd like.

katsucats said:
I think this is a classical circular argument, where you're presuming your conclusion in the premise. If people agree with some fundamental values, then those values will become fundamental. If you don't agree, then you're a psychopath (appeal to emotion; shaming).

Suppose, even if everyone in the world somehow believes "thou shalt not kill" -- it's still not a fact. It could not be empirically determined to be a fact. There is not an experiment that could prove this as a fact. To begin with, if we dig deeper, psychopathy does not have a definition that would be independent of cultural norms. It does not have an explicit definition. It's[sic] definition entails an arbitrarily chosen number of traits and a questionnaire test that a subject must answer subjectively, to which a score in combination with the subjective determination of a professional psychologist could determine whether someone has the signs of a psychopath (i.e. but not necessarily "is" a psychopath).