Healing the Is/Ought Dichotomy

Stefan Molyneux

22 July 2025  This lecture explores the is-ought dichotomy, analyzing David Hume's assertion that moral imperatives cannot be directly derived from factual statements. The speaker critiques the selective use of this principle in secular morality and legal contexts, arguing that moral judgments often reflect subjective views rather than objective truths. The discussion emphasizes that engagements in debate carry intrinsic ethical standards, suggesting that while strict derivation may be problematic, a shared understanding of moral imperatives can emerge within secular discourse, enriching the conversation around ethics.  FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00So, one of the biggest challenges in philosophy, and I talk about this, of course, in my free book,

00:05Universally Preferable Behavior, A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, is the issue and challenge of

00:11the is-ought dichotomy, the facts and values. So, very briefly, the facts and values dichotomy

00:19is that we cannot get an ought from an is. We cannot say that it is wrong to murder

00:26just because if you kill someone, they die. I mean, if you kill someone, they die. If you

00:32deprive them of oxygen or cut off their head or something like that, then they die.

00:36That is incontrovertible fact. Now, where do you get the ought, the should? Now, of course,

00:41religion says, well, you get the ought or the should from God, right? God commands this, right?

00:50Right. So, how does philosophy answer that in the absence of the ought? Now, one thing that's

00:59interesting is that you never see the is-ought dichotomy people. We'll call them the Humeans,

01:04since it was David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, who first formulated this in the way that we

01:09currently understand it. So, we'll call them the Humeans. So, the Humeans never say this

01:16except with regards to morality. So, the Humeans don't organize big protests and marches saying

01:25all laws are immoral and unjust because you can't get an ought from an is or you shouldn't have any

01:33laws because the laws of nature do not give rise to the laws of man. The facts of reality do not give

01:40rise to the ethics of morality. You never see that. You never do that.

01:46When someone says to someone else, oh, you're a Nazi, the Humeans never en masse say,

01:55well, you can't say that. It's bad because there's nothing in reality that says your slur

02:04is negative or bad. If they are, someone's a white supremacist or whatever it is, right?

02:09Whatever negative term, the Humeans never say, well, you can't get an ought from an is, so you can't get

02:15a negative moral judgment or an insult or a slur. You can't get that from an is. It only ever comes

02:24trotting out when there is an attempt to prove morality from a secular standpoint. Then immediately

02:31it comes out. In other words, it's kind of a demonic

02:34weapon that is used against striving the mightiest

02:39to achieve

02:40secular morality.

02:42The Humeans really don't, as far as I've seen, maybe they do, that I haven't seen, of course,

02:48certainly possible. But the Humeans don't say to the religious, well, you can't get an ought from an

02:54is because the religious say, well, we certainly can. The is of God creates the ought of commandments.

03:00They never protest when somebody is being charged with a crime or on trial or convicted of a crime or

03:07put in prison. They never protest and say, well, that's wrong because you can't get an ought from an is.

03:11If someone is convicted of rape, if somebody's a rapist, the Humeans don't say, well, I mean,

03:19you can't get an ought from an is. Therefore, right, then this person should be set free because

03:25it never happens that way. Never once seen it in, you know, let's just say a large number of freaking

03:33years in the realm of philosophy and politics and law and all. Nothing. The only time, and this is what,

03:40you know, this doesn't disprove it. I understand that. But it makes me pretty freaking suspicious

03:45that the only time the is-ought dichotomy gets trotted out is when somebody is trying to prove

03:51morality from a secular or non-theistic standpoint. No other case, no other situation, no other

03:59circumstance. The Humeans did not protest the Nuremberg trials saying you can't get an ought from

04:07an is. They did not protest COVID restrictions or mandates saying you can't get an ought from an is.

04:15They do not protest university professors with tenure saying you can't get an ought from an is.

04:21Therefore, all moral commandments and injunctions are invalid because you cannot get an ought from an is.

04:27They never do that stuff. Ever. It's only when somebody is trying to talk about secular morality

04:35that the is-ought dichotomy comes trotting out. I don't remember the Humeans ever protesting, say,

04:42the draft or the welfare state saying, well, you can't get an ought from an is. So you can't say that

04:49people ought to be drafted. You can't say that people ought to contribute to the welfare state.

04:53What about socialized medicine? Well, you can't say people ought to get medicine

04:57from the fact that people get sick, right? Never. Every time governments expand, the Humeans are

05:05absolutely absent. But every time some philosopher wrestles with secular morality, oh, here they come,

05:12the wee bairns, here they come, to ramble on about the is-ought dichotomy. And listen, I, again,

05:19I know that this doesn't disprove it. I'll sort of get to that. I'll get to that. I'll get to that.

05:24But what I am saying is that it's incredibly suspicious behavior that has me know for an

05:31absolute fact that they're not arguing in good faith. That they're not interested in anything

05:36other than the castration and the hamstring of secular moralists. Because that's the only time

05:41they come out. I mean, the Humeans have never met a government program they didn't like. They've never

05:46met an edict, or a license, or a requirement, or anything like that. So, human conventions

05:54enforce to the point of a gun trouble not the Humeans at all. But, boy, you try and prove secular

06:00ethics, and out they come. Nah, nah, can't get a lot from these. And again, I'm not saying this

06:06disproves it. It just means that it's mostly bullshite. And I'll tell you why. Because, listen,

06:11if people are wrong, I respect them if they live by their values. So, if the Humeans were out en masse

06:18at every legal imposition, every moral judgment, every slur, every attack, like,

06:25somebody gets called a racist, and the Humean's like, well, you can't get an ought from an is,

06:30so you can't call people racist, right? Because you can't get an ought from anything. Racism is bad,

06:35right? They never do any of that stuff. It's only, it's like, they hear this little sound,

06:40and whatever it is, this, like, bat signal goes up. Oh, God, someone's working on secular morality.

06:45Let's bring out the is-ought dichotomy, which we never do under any other circumstances whatsoever.

06:50And this is why it lasts, because secular morality is a denial of the validity of political power.

07:00I mean, UPB certainly is. So, they're just unconsciously or consciously deployed or susceptible

07:07to their, their, the baromers of the political classes, and, oh, somebody's working on secular

07:13morality. Ooh, it's all dichotomy, it's all dichotomy, it's all dichotomy. And again, they

07:18don't believe it, because they never deploy it anywhere else. It's just this one special

07:21counterspell to the spell called secular morality. So, it's not a belief, and it is not consistently

07:29applied. They have no integrity with it whatsoever. So, I'm just telling you, that's my,

07:34my backdrop. That's my backdrop. Now, they're effective, don't get me wrong, they're effective,

07:38because they, they deflate most moralists' enthusiasm or advocacy for their morality,

07:44because they can't get an ought for many years. Oh, I guess that's true. I guess we don't get

07:47through that, right? Meanwhile, people are imposing random subjective oughts at gunpoint all over the

07:53place, and they don't say a, a damn thing, a damn thing. So, are there oughts in the is?

08:02Yeah, I mean, I accept it. I accept it. Because you, you, you, you mean, moral laws are not inscribed

08:07in the fabric of the universe. The vast majority of the universe has no moral laws whatsoever,

08:11right? Because it has no consciousness and no conception of universal ethics, right? There's

08:18no UPP on Mars, there's no UPP on Uranus, no UPP, well, maybe on I, but not on yours. And there's

08:25no UPP in the galaxy that we know of. So, yeah, moral laws are not inscribed in the nature of the

08:33universe. Fine, fine, fine. Does that mean there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior?

08:38Well, the scientific method is not inscribed in the nature of things either. But the scientific

08:44method is the only valid way to correctly understand the behavior of matter and energy.

08:51reason is not inscribed in the nature of things. But that doesn't mean that reason is subjective

08:59or arbitrary. If you have four bananas, you have four discrete entities called bananas. But the number

09:07four only exists in your mind. Does that mean that the number four is arbitrary? So, if you want to be

09:14accurate about counting four bananas, you have to say that there are four, because there are, in fact,

09:20four bananas, not five, not three. Now, if you are an animal, and you don't have the conception of

09:27numbers, really, certainly not the abstract conception of numbers, then you can just snuffle

09:31the bananas and eat them and spit out the peels or eat the peels, it doesn't really matter, right?

09:37But if you are a mathematician, and you want to be accurate about counting four bananas, you have to

09:44say that there are four bananas, or whatever, mathematician or a kid who's counting bananas, right?

09:50So, if. Now, the Humeans say, well, the moment there's an if, it's conditional, and then, you know,

09:55it's not absolute, and so on. It's like, it kind of is, right? So, all of the people who say you can't

10:01get an ought from an is are telling me my moral theories are invalid because they're not inscribed

10:06in the nature of the universe. Steph, you shouldn't say that UPB is embedded in the nature of reality

10:14because it's not, right? Okay. So, yeah, I accept that. I accept that you're correcting

10:19me according to a universal standard. Can you get an ought from an is? You just did. If you say,

10:24I can't do it, then you've told me I cannot get an ought from an is, and you ought not say

10:28that there is one, right? The moment people say to me, you can't get an ought from an is,

10:36they've just got an ought, assuming you want to say things that are true. Yes, it is absolutely true.

10:41So, concepts do not exist in the things they describe. There's no ghostly essence to a tree

10:47that has you know what a tree is. You didn't see it in a perfect world before you were born,

10:52like Plato suggests, or Plato openly states. So, yeah, you can't get an ought from an is,

11:00but if you want to say things true about the world, what you say has to conform with the world.

11:05You can't get an ought from an is, but if you point at a tree and say that's a tree, you are

11:11correct. If you point at a tree and say that's a unicorn, you are double wrong in that it's not a

11:15unicorn and unicorns don't exist as magical creatures, right? Horse with a horn on its head,

11:20who cares? Who knows, right? Doesn't matter. Could be, but doesn't matter. But magical horses with horns

11:24on their heads do not exist because magic does not exist because magic is self-contradictory

11:29propositions, effects without cause. So, it is true that you cannot get an ought from an is.

11:39Therefore, if you are in pursuit of truth, you cannot say that UPB or moral theories are inscribed

11:48in the nature of the universe. They are not. They are not like dominoes that fall from the behavior

11:54of matter and energy. But the moment that somebody says to me, you cannot get an ought from an is,

12:01they are saying, you should say things that are true, not things that are false, right?

12:07Steph, you can't get an ought from an is, so you shouldn't say that they're, you shouldn't say that

12:12you can. Can't get an ought from an is, so you shouldn't say that you can. Okay, but what if I want

12:16to lie? You can get an ought from an is. No, you can't. Okay, so you're telling me I'm wrong,

12:22and I should have my statements conform to that which is true in reality, which is you can't get

12:26an ought from an is. You see? I mean, as my daughter would say, she's got this race these days. It's

12:32literally not that deep. It's not that deep. It's not that deep. Ah, teens. I mean, she's often not

12:40wrong. So, the moment somebody says, well, you can't get an ought from an is, can't get an ought from

12:45an is, they're saying, well, if you're saying you can get an ought from an is, you're wrong, and you

12:51absolutely should not do that. It is false to say you can get an ought from an is, so if you want to

12:59say things that are true, you should not say that you can get an ought from an is. Okay, so you're

13:05saying what? That the concepts in the mind should conform to the facts of reality, and you should not

13:11advocate for things that are false, and you should only advocate for things that are true.

13:14But if you can't get an ought from an is, why should I do that? Oh, because you're saying

13:21that we have a choice about what we communicate, and we should communicate things that are true

13:30versus things that are false. And you can't get an ought from an is, and so you should not say that

13:35you can. Okay, so that's an ought. You ought to say the truth. So, this is what I mean. Like,

13:41you cannot deny UPB without deploying UPB. You cannot deny UPB without using UPB. See,

13:50when you say you can't get an ought from an is, that is a UPB methodology. It is universally

14:00preferable behavior to say or type or communicate things that are true, not things that are false.

14:06Now, if I say, you can get an ought from an is, and the Humians come along and say, you can't get

14:12an ought from an is. Sorry, that's how they sound. They do, objectively. That's not even me. That's

14:17just your own brain putting on the sheep filter. So, when the Humians come along and say, you can't

14:23get an ought from an is, they don't understand that they're telling you an ought from an is. In this

14:28case, an is not. Oorts are not inscribed in the nature of reality, so you should not say that they are.

14:36Now, implicit in that is if you value the truth and want to be correct, right? So, if I were to say,

14:44oh, you can totally get oughts from an is. Say, no, you can't. Prove it. It's like, no,

14:48I'm just stating it. You absolutely know what you need to prove it. You can't get an ought from an is.

14:54No, no, you can. But you can't. Like, they just get really frustrated, right? Whereas I'm just

14:58asserting that you can, and they get really frustrated. In other words, they would get upset with me

15:04saying something that was false as if it were true. The moment I try and wire up what's in my

15:09head to what's in the world, the obligation for accuracy is automatically created because I am

15:15claiming accuracy. If I say gases expand when heated, I'm claiming not a subjective experience

15:22or a dream I had last night or a daydream. I'm claiming actual fact. In other words, I'm saying

15:29not, I like gases to expand when heated. I think it's cool when they do that. I like the colors that

15:35gases have when they expand when they're heated. Like, all of this kind of stuff, right? I'm not

15:41saying that. I'm saying it is a fact, independent of my consciousness, that gases expand when heated.

15:48So the moment I'm making a statement that is attempting to relate the contents of my mind

15:53to actual facts in reality, then the obligation to be true is created. If I say, that is a tree,

16:02I'm claiming to make an objective statement about the identity of the thing that I'm pointing at,

16:08right? You understand. So if I'm saying something true about the world, then it needs to accurately

16:17represent, accurately represent what is in the world. If I say, I like that tree, I am not making

16:26a statement connecting the contents of my mind to an objective fact in the universe. I'm saying,

16:32I like maple trees, they're pretty in the fall, and they make good tree juice for my

16:38pancakes. It's all subjective, right? If I say maple syrup is sweet, well, that's semi-objective,

16:48right? It may not taste sweet to somebody with no taste buds, or who's got, you know,

16:53in throes of COVID or something, right? No taste. If I say maple syrup contains sugars,

17:00I think it does, right? Assuming it does, right? Or milk contains lactose, then yeah,

17:04I'm making a statement. Not I prefer, or I like, or I dreamt, or I wish, or I fantasize,

17:10or I imagine. These are all operations in the mind that do not claim to represent things in the

17:16world. But if I say, that's a tree, I'm claiming that the contents in my mind and the language that

17:23I'm using matches the object that I'm pointing at. And there is an implicit obligation to be accurate

17:30when you're claiming a correlation between the contents of your mind and what it is that you're

17:37communicating, because the contents of the mind also include the vocalizations, the language,

17:40the speech that goes out into the world. So, if I'm saying that the contents of my mind match

17:46the facts of reality, then they should match the facts of reality. Is it in the nature of the tree

17:55that I have to be accurate when I point at something and say that it's a tree? No,

17:59the tree doesn't care that I have accurately identified it or not. The tree doesn't care

18:05about anything. Why? Well, because it's a tree, basically. It doesn't care about anything.

18:10So, I mean, that's how we know someone is sane, right? Is that the contents of their mind

18:14match the facts of reality reasonably well when they claim they're speaking the truth about things

18:22in the world? Right? If I run away from a tree thinking it is a demon that is going to devour me,

18:29I may not be working in the most objective, conceivable fashion and using the most sane

18:37methodologies. So, if I claim something is true, I'm saying that it is true relative to some external

18:46standard. Now, it's built in, right? So, it's built in that when I point at something and say

18:53that's a tree, it is built in that I am actually identifying that thing as a tree, right? That's

19:00built in. I don't have to say it over and over again, right? So, you cannot get an ought from an is.

19:09And the big question is, oh, look at me saying the word so often that it starts to sound mad,

19:17I tell you. All right. So, you cannot get an ought from an is. The real question is, is a debate

19:25an is or an ought, right? So, you can get an ought from an ought, right? And this is the biggest

19:34question. Is a debate an is or an ought? I'm sorry, I know it sounds crazy, but it's really,

19:42it's really, this is the heart of the issue. This is the heart of the issue. Is a debate atoms or

19:49preference? Is a debate an is or is a debate a should, right? That's the big question. That's the big

20:02question. Now, if the debate is an is, then you cannot get an ought from an is. But a debate by its

20:13very nature is not an is, but an ought. We ought to use reason. We ought to accord with the evidence.

20:21We ought to be consistent. We ought to say things that are true. That is the very nature of a debate.

20:25A debate is an ought, not an is. Now, an ought you can get from an ought, right? If you want to go

20:36north, you ought to go north. If your destination is north, you ought to go north. If you want to live,

20:42you have to breathe. If, right? You ought to breathe if you have a goal. If you have a goal. So, is a debate

20:49a thing or a goal? Well, it's not a thing, right? A debate is not a thing. It's not an object.

20:57It's not a block. It's not a tree. It's not a brick. It's not an atom, right? A debate is an ought,

21:06not an is. Now, you can get an ought from an ought, but you cannot get an ought from an is.

21:12If you are thirsty, you ought to drink in order to satisfy your thirst. If you're tired, you ought to

21:19rest in order to satisfy your tiredness. If you want big muscles, you ought to train. Well, you must

21:26train, I suppose, right? If you want a baby, you have to have the old spermy egg dance. It's the worst

21:34name for a breakfast place I've ever thought of, but at least for now. Yet, yet, maybe not forever,

21:39but for now. So, you can't get an ought from an is. Okay, I agree. But a debate is not an is. A debate

21:46is an ought. And you can absolutely get an ought from an ought. That's why oughts exist. If you want

21:55to be accurate in math, right, you ought to be correct in your equations, right? If you want to get,

22:04if you want to get the correct answer, your answer has to be right. So, if you want to be good at

22:11math, you ought to say that two and two make four, not two and two make five. If. If you don't care,

22:17you can just say whatever you want. So, and it's funny, you know, I've been fussing around this is

22:23versus ought stuff. I was just, just had dinner with a new friend of mine and I've been fussing

22:30around with this isn't ought stuff. It's funny, you have a belly full of Greek food and suddenly

22:36it's all, it's all clear. Because I've had, you know, I'm always annoyed when I have good answers,

22:41but not great answers. In other words, airtight answers. Right. And this is airtight. This is,

22:49this is the, like, the answers before were good, but not airtight. And I'm never, never satisfied

22:55until it's irrefutable. Now, of course, irrefutable is like the old statement that, uh, you can't make

23:03anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. So, you can't make anything airtight because people

23:11are full of gas, right? So, no, this, this is it. I mean, this is, this is the, this is the best

23:18answer. This is the airtight answer. The answers before were good. Good, certainly solid. Absolutely.

23:22You, you, by saying you can't get an ought from an is, you are getting an ought from an is, which

23:27is an ought not. But yeah, this is so, this is it. And I'm going to just keep repeating it just to

23:34make sure it makes sense. And so that it sinks into both of our bone marrow because the, uh, you can't

23:39get an ought from an is. People are really kind of annoying and, you know, it's fine for them to be

23:44annoying. It's fine. Look, I'm the last guy to say it's not okay to be annoying. But yeah. So, you can't

23:54get an ought from an is. What is the debate? Is the debate an ought or is the debate an is? Well, it can't be

24:01an is. It can't be an is. Unless you say concepts are atoms and neurons in the brain and therefore they

24:09exist. Like, that's not, but they don't exist in the same way that the things they describe exist,

24:13right? The concept of a tree or a forest doesn't exist in the same way that a tree or a collection

24:17of trees exists. So, the pursuit of truth is a process. It is a journey that is very, um, explicitly

24:32and implicitly, like, if you ask someone, is a debate, is a philosophical debate aimed at the

24:40pursuit of truth? Yes. Through reason and evidence. I mean, people would say yes, unless they're complete

24:44mystics, in which case they're not philosophers. Should you say, is a debate, is a philosophical

24:50debate aimed at the pursuit of truth? Yeah. According to reason and evidence. In other words, if somebody

24:55blatantly contradicts themselves or says that they're, the truth of their proposition is contingent

25:00upon the fact that the earth is banana-shaped, you would say, well, that's not correct. So, if it's

25:06self-contradictory, if I say, you both can and cannot get an ought from an is, right, that would not

25:12be sensible, right, because it violates basic law of logic. If I say, two and two mark both four and a

25:22banana tree, then that would not be consistent. That would actually be quite mad, really. So,

25:29the debate is what? The debate is a process of comparing propositions to reason and evidence.

25:41And in this way, science is also a debate. And it is, really. I mean, debate is supposed to have

25:48conclusions, but science is a debate comparing conjectures or hypotheses to reason and evidence.

25:55In other words, are they logically consistent or consistent with logic? Number one. And number two,

26:03do they accord with experimental data? Are they reproducible? Do they accord with measurements and

26:10data and so on, right? So, if I have a conjecture, a hypothesis as a kid, that if I hold a tennis ball

26:18at arm's length, let it go, it's going to fall sideways and then up? That's my theory. Now, is it

26:24consistent? Yes. It's consistent with reason in that it's possible for these things to happen.

26:29It's not innately self-contradictory for something to fall sideways and then up. In other words, I'm not

26:36saying it goes up, down, sideways, and backwards through time all at the same time, right? That would

26:41be self-contradictory. That would be impossible. Or the ball becomes a square circle,

26:45and that would be contradictory. So, saying the ball falls sideways and then up is not

26:52innately self-contradictory in that it's possible for these things to move. It's possible for objects

26:56to move that way, right? A fish can swim sideways and then up, and a balloon could blow sideways and

27:01then up. A sycamore leaf could blow sideways and then up. Things can move sideways and up. It's not

27:06innately self-contradictory in that way. But, of course, I hold the ball out at arm's length

27:12as a kid. And I have a theory. My theory is that the ball moves sideways and up. Now,

27:18does it accord with reason? Yes, it is not innately self-contradictory. However, what happens when I

27:25let go of the ball? Well, it falls down. It neither goes sideways nor up, unless it is insanely windy.

27:31But, you know, like, assuming still air and a reasonably solid ball, that kind of stuff,

27:36the ball falls down. If I say a ball that is made out of twine will bounce more than a ball made out

27:49of rubber. Again, I would sort of test that. Now, it's not innately self-contradictory. One of them's

27:55going to bounce more than the other. So, in science, we say, does it accord with reason? If it accords

28:01with reason, we could then move on to empirical testing. And if it accords with reason, and it

28:06accords with empirical testing, and it's predictive, right? All balls will fall down, right? In a vacuum,

28:13blah, blah, blah, right? All balls will fall down, all other things being equal, then it accords with

28:18reason, and it accords with evidence, and therefore it is true. It is true. Balls fall down. Balls fall

28:24in. Right? So, that is how it works in science. Now, if we can think of a debate about whether

28:36Socrates is mortal, right? Take our old standard syllogism, right? We take a debate that Socrates

28:42is mortal. So, if I put forward the proposition, all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, but Socrates

28:50is immortal, then we don't know from that directly whether Socrates is mortal. But we sure know that

29:00I'm incorrect, because I have a contradictory statement. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man,

29:04but Socrates is immortal. We know that the argument cannot be correct, because it self-contradicts,

29:10right? All men are mortal, Socrates is the category of man, but Socrates is immortal,

29:16therefore not all men can be mortal, or Socrates is mortal, right? That's really the only two options.

29:21So, let's look at that debate. Now, trying to determine whether Socrates is mortal,

29:29that is the purpose of the debate. Is the process of debating whether Socrates is mortal,

29:36is it an is or an ought? The debate is not an is. The is exists independent of

29:46human consciousness. Because if there was no is, that existed independent of human consciousness,

29:52there wouldn't be enough stable matter, or matter at all, for human consciousness to evolve over the

29:56last 14 billion years of the universe and 4 billion years of life on earth. So, does the debate exist

30:02outside of human consciousness? No. And let's just talk about the verbal debate. Let's just like

30:07pretend it's not recorded, or the verbal debate, right? So, the verbal debate does not exist

30:13outside of human consciousness. And therefore, since it exists within human consciousness,

30:20and human consciousness is subject to the ought. All life is subject to the ought. It is food I ought to

30:27eat in order to live. So, if the debate is only a product of the human mind, and really in a way only

30:35exists because of the human mind, then the debate is more like a concept or a hypothesis, while it is

30:44a hypothesis that's being tested. So, the debate has as its goal innately, explicitly and implicitly,

30:52like you don't need to say, I'm aiming to be honest and get to the truth in this debate, because both

30:57sides are claiming to be honest and getting to the truth. They just disagree what the truth is, and it's

31:01either one of theirs or neither of theirs. It can't be both, if they're opposing positions.

31:08So, the debate is a process of the human mind, and therefore, it is not an is, but an ought.

31:16Not all processes of the human mind are oughts. You know, daydreaming is not an ought. A dreaming at

31:22night is not an ought, right? But, of course, a lot of the products, a lot of the processes,

31:29contents, and products of the human mind is an ought. Some of them are certainly not oughts.

31:35But, the debate, by its very nature, is an ought. The conversation is an ought. Morality is an ought.

31:46We ought to do good, we ought to do right, and it ought to be universal. That way it's not subjective.

31:51And, because it's subjective, it's not enforceable. So, the debate and concepts are oughts, because

32:02they're not ises. In other words, the concept tree ought to, or we could say must. Must and ought,

32:09if it must accord, if the concept tree must accord with the actual tree, if it must do that, then it

32:16ought to be accurate. If whatever the concept is that it's describing in the world has to accord with

32:21the nature of what it's describing, then it ought to be accurate. If my destination is north, I must

32:30go north to reach my destination. Saying I must and I ought is pretty much the same thing. I must eat

32:36in order to live. Therefore, if I want to live, I ought to eat, or I must eat. I mean, I'm sure you

32:41could find slice and dice this to some degree, but let's just take that as relative synonyms for the

32:46moment. So, the debate exists within the human mind. It's a process of back and forth aimed at

32:52establishing the truth. And a debate is not an is like a tree is. It is an ought in that if you were

33:00to debate with someone who says, I have no regard for the truth, like a troll, right? I mean, if the

33:06troll were to say, I have no regard for the truth. I just want to waste your time and frustrate and

33:11annoy you. I don't care about the truth. I have no interest in the truth. Then you wouldn't debate with

33:15that person, because it would be a bad faith debate. And of course, we've all had that process

33:21when we're debating with someone, either in person or online, usually online, where we suddenly go,

33:28oh, crap, they don't have any interest in the debate at all. They just want to frustrate me and

33:35waste my time. They play too much. They play too much. So, if the goal of the debate is the truth,

33:45then people should enter the debate with the goal of pursuing and achieving the truth. I mean,

33:54nobody wakes up in the morning and says, I'm going to have a debate about whether I ought to have had

34:03that dream or not. Because that is a process or operation of the unconscious mind. It can't really be

34:11oughted. It can't be oughted. It is beyond the ought. Beyond the ought cloud. Isn't there an ought cloud

34:18in astronomy? I think there is. Oh, yeah. Isn't it the way the debris on the outskirts of the solar

34:23system is the ought cloud? O-O-R-T. I think it is, yeah. So, you can't get an ought from an is. There is

34:29debris on the edge of the solar system. We're going to call it the ought. Ha-ha. Solved, you bleating

34:34humans. So, the debate is a process of the human mind that does not exist in the real world with the

34:42goal of the truth. And either implicitly or explicitly, the goal is to come to a resolution,

34:52right? This is B-I-R-T from my days at Glendon College and at McGill in the debate club.

35:00B-I-R-T. Be it resolved that. Be it resolved that. So, the conversation, the debates, really all that is

35:10foundational and involved in language as a whole is an ought. Does language exist in the way that a

35:20tree exists? It does not. Therefore, all operations of consciousness that involve language, which would

35:25be a debate, debate is not psychically transmitted. It's not done through colors, right? It's done through

35:30language. So, since language doesn't exist in the way that a tree exists, and language is a whole

35:36series of oughts, right? Language is a whole series of oughts. In other words, to communicate using

35:43language, you ought to have some kind of comprehensible series of letters and words that add up to some

35:53coherent thought. Doesn't necessarily mean cogent, but at least it's coherent. You can understand. It's not

36:00just a random Elon Musk naming his 44th child in a keyboard smash of random letters, right?

36:08So, the debate involves all kinds of oughts. We ought to aim for the truth. We ought to use

36:14comprehensible language. We ought to rebut each other's points. We ought not to straw man. We

36:18ought not to ad hominom. We ought, ought, ought, ought, ought. It is an ought-fest. Oort-fest.

36:24So, can we get an ought from an is? No, but a debate is an ought already. Oh, so good. Oh, my

36:38nipples go ping. So, you can't get an ought from an is. And this is what I was kind of getting at in

36:48the book, UPB. Lo, those many years ago. The debate is already an ought. Morals are already

36:56an ought. Debating morals is already an ought. You can't get an ought from an is, but you can get an

37:02ought from an ought. The debate is automatically an ought. And therefore, saying you can't get an ought

37:07from an is when you're already in the ought environment is like saying you can't get to

37:13Greenland from China when you're already in Greenland. It's like we're already in Greenland.

37:18The China is the is, can't get to Greenland the ought, but because you're debate, everybody who's

37:24debating is already in Greenland. So, you can't get to Greenland from China, but everybody's already

37:31in Greenland. So, that's the answer. Now, of course, the question is, and this is the blistering brain

37:39excitement of being back on X with its 280 characters or whatever the hell it is, you've

37:44got to get all kinds of haiku. So, how do I, and that's sort of, I don't know, I may not be able to

37:49resolve this in this particular yabble fest, but the question then is, okay, well, how do I communicate

37:57this? Something like, you can't get an ought from an is. No, we're already in a debate. We're not in an

38:04is, we're in an ought. The debate is an ought. The debate is already an ought.

38:08Unless you're going to tell me that you're not interested in truth over the course of this

38:13debate. If you're not interested in truth over the course of this debate, and so I say, are you,

38:19okay, maybe it's like this. Are you interested in, are you interested in getting to the truth? Yes.

38:23Okay, then we already have an ought, which is we ought to get to the truth. So, we're already in an

38:27ought. Forget the is. We were long past the is. We're in Greenland, baby. Of course, people won't

38:31know what that means, unless they happen to have heard this. And maybe it can be our cutesy little

38:35inside joke, you know, like the funny drink you spilled on me when we met. Okay, so communicating

38:42it, that's, that's a wee bit of a challenge, lad. How a bit. Somebody says we can't get an ought from

38:50an is. Listen to me, thinking in real time. Normally it's more prepared. But I got a belly full of black

38:57bean soup. So, somebody says you can't get an ought from an is. Yeah, we, we, trust me, bro,

39:04we're in debates. We're already in the land of ought. Unless you, I mean, do you, do you accept

39:10that we should both be aiming for the truth? Yes. Okay, then we both ought to tell the truth. We

39:15both ought to be honest. We both ought not to mischaracterize the straw man, to ad hominem, to

39:19to cock, whatever it is, right? We shouldn't, well, should we use logical fallacies? No. So,

39:23we're already in the ought. We're already in the land of oughts. Forget the is. Can't get an ought

39:28from an is. Agreed. Can you get an ought from an ought? Ah, there we go. Okay. Okay, you can't,

39:36there we go. You can't get an ought from an is. Agreed. Can you get an ought from an ought? Or,

39:42you can't get an ought from an is. Are any oughts valid? And if they say, well, no, there's no valid

39:48oughts, then I'd say, okay, well, I'm not debating with you because you don't even think that you ought to

39:53tell the truth or you ought to, like, there's no debate, right? To accept the debate, we have to

39:58accept the ought, which is kind of what I was saying by us backwards back in the day when I was

40:06talking about how you can't argue against UPB, you can't argue against UPB without using UPB. So,

40:14this is another way of saying you can't argue against the ought without deploying the ought,

40:20which is to say the argument is the ought, that the form of the proposition reveals

40:29the truth of the proposition. So, somebody says, you can't, sorry, to UPB thing, I need to rehearse

40:37this. And by the way, this is what my chatterbox brain does on a daily basis all the time. What about

40:42this argument? What about that argument? Well, this could be better. Well, that could be better.

40:46So, somebody says, you can't get an ought from an is. Say, can you get an ought from an ought?

40:53By that, I mean, okay, what's the best way of putting that? So, if somebody says,

40:58you can't get an ought from an is, can you get an ought from an ought? If a scientist who ought

41:09to follow the scientific method, ought he to publish his data? If he should publish, if he should

41:16follow the scientific method, is it incumbent upon him to publish his data? I mean, in general,

41:22I would say yes. Okay, if a scientist ought to follow the scientific method, ought other scientists

41:28be able to reproduce his result? Should other scientists be able to reproduce his result? I mean,

41:32that I know for sure. Like, if you can't reproduce, this is the whole fusion in the jar thing from when

41:36I was younger, right? So, if you can't reproduce another scientist method, replication, if you can't

41:46replicate another scientist findings, then they're not valid, right? So, can you get an ought from an

41:52ought? If I want to get to a destination that is north, ought I go north? If I want, right? And maybe

42:02people have trouble with the implicit ought. You know, like, I didn't sign a contract that says I'm

42:08going to pay for my dinner at a restaurant, right? Ought. So, maybe because it is implicit in the

42:18debate that you ought to pursue the truth in a rational and empirical fashion, maybe it's the implicit

42:25nature of the ought. Okay, so, sorry. I hope this is helpful. This is like, I don't know, this is like

42:31hearing how somebody writes a song. The whole process, I find this stuff fascinating, but maybe

42:36you do, maybe you don't. I like the behind the scenes stuff. So, somebody says, I honestly will

42:42do this even before a tweet sometimes. So, somebody says, you can't get an ought from an is. And then I

42:49say, can you get an ought from an ought? Yes. You can get an ought from an ought. Because you can't ever

42:58only just have one ought in life. Because then you just use up your one ought, and then you have no

43:02more oughts, and you're right dead, right? So, if you want to live, ought you to eat and drink?

43:11If you want to live? Yes. Okay. If you want to have a good debate, ought you follow reason and evidence

43:19to the best of your ability? Yes. Would you enter into a debate if somebody said, I am not going to

43:29use reason and evidence? I'm going to insult and shoot your dog? Well, no. I think I've made this

43:35argument many years ago. But anyway, so would you? No. Okay. So, to be in a debate is to accept the oughts

43:45of reason and evidence, and comprehensible language, and speaking the same language, and I guess it's

43:51two sides of the same coin, and so on, right? Okay. I'll hopefully be able to boil it down even further,

43:57but I'm just sort of following the thread as it goes right now. Hey, welcome to my inner voices.

44:02If I could get it down to one, that would be fantastic, but no luck yet. Right. You can't get an ought

44:08from an is. Can you get an ought from an ought? Yes. A debate is an ought. We ought to tell the truth.

44:17You can get an ought from an ought. Therefore, you cannot, in a debate about UPB, appeal to the

44:24no ought from the is because we're already in an ought. Oh, it feels good. Feels good. Like a fresh wax and

44:33sunbeams. So then how do you get that down to 280 characters or less in a way that is incontrovertible

44:44to all but the pig-headed? See, I mean, you know, you can't, like, you can't navigate by the pig-headed

44:52no matter what, because they'll just steal your will to live, and they're just there to block you and

44:57frustrate you, and, like, they're minions, like the persons from Porlock and that sort of famous

45:01old short story, right? So, forget the pig-headed source, right? I mean, the great thing about AI is

45:08you don't have to listen to the source people anymore. So, go look that shit up yourself, brother.

45:13Okay, so, you can't get an ought from an is. Now, my answer's been what you just did,

45:20but I think the better answer, the airtight answer, again, forgetting the pig-headed,

45:25the airtight answer is, you can't get an ought from an is. We are already debating, the ought is

45:32implicit. Oh, that's good. It's not complete, because there's steps missing, but it's got a

45:38whiff of goodness to it. You can't get an ought from an is. We're already debating and using language,

45:44the ought. We are already in an ought. You can't get an ought. That's not good enough, right? It's

45:50too quick, it's too rapid, it's too concise. No, too concise, it is incomplete. Sorry, too concise is

45:56incomplete. Like, if there's a 12-step to fixing your toilet, and they leave out the middle eight,

46:03it's not too concise, it's incomplete. All right. You can't get an ought from an is. Can you get an

46:09ought from an ought? Yes. A debate is an ought. Therefore, by participating in a debate, we are

46:15already doing oughts. Okay, that's better, right? It's still a step or two missing, but it's better.

46:23Okay, it's like Freddie Mercury with the, no, no, hit the drum, it's like, right, ta-ta.

46:28You can't get an ought from an is. We're in a debate, the ought is implicit, and the debate can't

46:36exist in any other way. Okay, you can't get an ought from an is. Are we in a debate? Yes. Is a debate,

46:42oh, maybe this is it. Okay, you can't get an ought from an is. Are we in a debate? Yes. Is a debate an ought

46:49or an is? Oh, that's good. Now, they can't say it's an is, unless they're going to say, well,

46:56the atom's on the screen, and blah, blah, blah, right? But that's like saying that the word candy

47:00is the same as a candy bar. It's not. It's just not. That's my argument. It's just not, man.

47:07How can you think that? Bro. So, you can't get an ought from an is. Is a debate an ought or an is?

47:15Is a debate a thing or a should? Is it a goal or is it an object? If it is a goal, it is an ought

47:26because it's a willed direction, unlike a sycamore leaf or whatever it is, right, which is just blown

47:32by the wind. You cannot get an ought from an is. Is a debate an ought or an is? A debate cannot be an

47:40is. A debate is an ought. So, since we're debating, oughts are assumed and implicit and therefore

47:46saying they don't apply is invalid. Oh, that's better. Oh, that's good. That's a nipple tingle.

47:54Yes. It's like foreplay, but with a well-oiled squid. Or me when I was seventeen. All right.

48:02You can't get an ought from an is. Oh, I am... I am philosophizing so hard, I totally missed

48:13my exit. And that's some good philosophy, man. Look at that. Here I am talking about destinations,

48:18and I missed mine. Oh, well, we'll survive. We will survive. All right. Here we go.

48:25Uh, good, good, good. Look both ways, and we're there. It's pretty good. I say we got

48:33eighty percent, eighty percent, eighty percent. Now, I might need to tell, of course, I need

48:36to take this for a test drive live on X in order to see how well this goes. But it's always

48:44tough in a debate to go meta, right, to say, well, we're in a debate. What are the inevitable

48:51prerequisites implicit and implied and required in order for there to be a debate? Okay.

48:59You can't get an ought from an is. Debates are oughts, by definition. Eh, it needs some...

49:05We've already crossed that bridge or something. Like, you can't get an ought from an is. Agreed.

49:10A debate is an ought by definition, so let's keep going, assuming oughts, which are required

49:15for debates. Oh, that's not bad. That's not bad. Of course, you'll be accused of rushing things

49:20or moving the goalposts or something like that, right? You cannot get an ought from an

49:23is. All debates are oughts. Let's move on. Debates aren't oughts. Well, they're not is,

49:31are they? They're a process with a goal, a destination that requires integrity and honesty

49:35and fidelity to the rules of reason and evidence. Of course they're oughts. How can you have a debate

49:41that's not an ought? A tree is not an ought. Where is it? A rock is not an ought. So you can't

49:47get an ought from an is. Agreed. Debates are oughts, by definition. Ooh, that's pretty

49:51good. And they are. No, they're not. So you're saying that we ought not follow the rules of

49:57reason and evidence? Because I'm telling you, I won't debate with you if you're not willing

50:02to. Like, if there's no ought in this debate for you, I'm not debating you any more than

50:07I would get into a boxing ring with somebody who said there's no rules to this fight. Or I

50:12wouldn't play, I wouldn't set up chess or some complicated Catan board if somebody said I

50:17could just knock the board over and call in an airstrike and pee on it. Okay, so you can't

50:22get an ought from an is. It's hard work, man. Philosophy is hard work. It's fun work, but

50:27it's hard work. You can't get an ought from an is. Agreed. Debates and language are oughts

50:32by definition. Let's move on. That's pretty good. It's not perfect. I don't know what perfect

50:39looks like. You know, you don't want to have the standard of, well, perfect is when everyone

50:43agrees with you, because then people would just not agree with you in order to be bloody

50:46minded, right? So you can't get an ought from an is. Agreed. Debates are oughts by definition.

50:52Let's move on. Ah, that feels right. That feels right. And you know, it's my feelings that count.

50:59No, but when you've been doing it for long enough, you get an instinct as to what is right and good.

51:04All right. Let's take this for a test drive at some point tomorrow, I'm sure. And I hope you find

51:11it interesting as I'm sort of hammering through this stuff. It's neither easy nor automatic,

51:16but I do find it, as long as you know you can get there, and I know well enough to know by now I can

51:22get there, right? But as long as you know you can get there, then it's fun to do, right? If somebody

51:28asked me to do, I don't know, IBM's corporate taxes, I wouldn't be able to get, like, I just couldn't get

51:33there, right? There's just no way I could get there, because I just don't have the knowledge or skill

51:37or ability. So as long as I know I can get there, the journey is fun. And hey, look at that. We got

51:46there. And I got to where I need to get to. All right. Thanks, everyone. Love you guys. Bye.

Category

Transcript

Recommended