Q&A: Regarding the ought-is fallacy
Regarding the ought-is fallacy
Question
In the book True and Unstable, when discussing the ought-is fallacy and deriving norms from facts, I didn’t really understand what the fallacy is. From what was written, it seemed as though this is an agreed-upon basic assumption, but I didn’t really understand the explanation for why you can’t derive norms from facts. Here too, is the challenge directed at a desired basic assumption?
Answer
Think about it and you’ll see that an argument that derives a norm from a fact is always an invalid argument. For example (just for illustration), women today are different in their education from women in the time of the Talmud, and therefore they should be deemed fit to give testimony. More explicitly:
- In the past, women lacked education. Fact.
- Today, women are educated. Fact.
- Conclusion: although women in the Talmudic period were disqualified from testimony, today they should be qualified to testify. Norm.
This argument is invalid (validity means that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises). Why? Because you have to add the premise that their disqualification from testimony was based on the characteristic that changed (such as education). Notice that the premise added in order to validate the argument is always of a kind that connects the fact to the norm. In our case, the additional premise is that the lack of education (a fact) is what caused the disqualification from testimony (a norm). Now the argument is valid, but in this form the premises are no longer purely factual.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand. That is exactly the ought-is fallacy. The evolutionary principle is a fact, and moral principles are norms.
So what missing premise would make the argument valid?
For example, that whatever is beneficial for survival is moral. But then of course the question will arise: how do you know that? So you haven’t solved anything.
If so, then what is the fallacy in grounding morality in the evolutionary principle of survival?