Greetings!
I held off announcing the new topic for a day because I only received one
vote, but I've decided to go anyway. The new topic is:
(4) Ought vs. Is
The Fact/Value Dichotomy comes up occasionally as a bone of contention that
the MoQ should be able to either solve or dissolve. This seems to have
started with Hume and, I think, "A Treatise on Human Nature". Referring to
proofs of the being of God: "... when of a sudden I am surprised to find
that instead of the usual copulations of propositions "is" and "is not", I
meet with no proposition that is not connected with an "ought" or "ought
not" ... as this "ought" or "ought not" expresses some new relation or
affirmation it is necessary that it be observed and explained; and at the
same time a reason should be given for what seems altogether inconceivable,
how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely
different from it." In other words, is it reasonable to derive OUGHT from IS
and does the MoQ allow, or preferably insist, that this is acceptable.
Have at! Just a few reminders (from the MOQ_Focus rules):
Members may post only one message every 24 hours (except for PROGRAM topic
suggestions and voting in last week of month).
Members must answer the program question in every post and must not pursue
topics that may distract from the program.
Members must express themselves clearly, concisely and courteously. They
should not use HTML email nor send attachments.
VOTING SUMMARY
#1
#2
#3
#4
horse@darkstar.uk.net
keith.gillette@ninepatch.net
#5
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST