ext_176843 ([identity profile] spoonless.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] spoonless 2010-10-17 03:11 am (UTC)

Re: the is-ought gap

So--it sounds like when you say "P is a good X" you're just saying that some particular P fits our concept of X very well. Q may only approximately fit into some concept X, and therefore Q is a poor X. That makes sense, and it does explain how if you insist on certain properties being included in a definition of an agent or a believer, then you'd be able to objectively measure whether someone was a good agent or a good believer. But somehow, I'm unable to see how this would help in bridging the gap between is and ought.

Lets say Mr. Wrong likes to cheat and lie, sleeps around on his wife, and beats his kids... while Mr. Right stays faithful, is an honest guy, and is good with kids.

Then you could say that Mr. Wrong is a good liar, a good cheater, a good philanderer, and a good domestic abuser. While Mr. Right is a good father and a good husband.

But the problem is, you've just moved all of the normative parts of everything into the definitions of the concepts "liar", "cheater", "philanderer", and "abuser" all having negative normative judgements built in. And father and husband are also concepts that have certain normative expectations built in, of which you aren't a good example if you don't meet those expectations. I don't see how this helps anyone decide whether it is good or bad to lie or cheat, to beat your kids, etc. It just shows that if you have some concept of someone who is supposed to act a certain way, they can either be a good example of acting that way, or a bad example of acting that way. It doesn't seem to tell us anything about how we should actually act. Do you think it does somehow?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting