IO Essay Research Paper THE ISOUGHT PROBLEMWhat

I-O Essay, Research Paper

THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEMWhat is the Is-Ought problem? It is usually stated as the problem ofwhether it is possible to derive normative statements from descriptivestatements; but to state the problem at its most general level, it isthe problem of whether ANY moral statement can be literally true, andhence potentially knowable. It is the problem of whether there existany moral FACTS in exactly the same sense as there exist chemical facts,historical facts, or mathematical facts. Since libertarianism is a normative political theory, it is only naturalto expect that great libertarian thinkers would grapple with theIs-Ought problem; after all, if there are no moral facts to be known,then any normative theory would be senseless. It would be akinto a theory about unicorns. Of course even if the Is-Ought problem weresolved, it would hardly establish any particular moral doctrine;solving the Is-Ought problem is a necessary condition forlibertarian moral theory to be established, not a sufficient condition. Interestingly, libertarian political philosophers have spent even moretime on the Is-Ought problem than you would expect. Rand, among others,popularized the problem. She certainly stirred my initial interest inthe question, but I found her answer to be quite unsatisfactory. After several years of thinking about the problem, I now think that Ihave a very promising solution which I will presently expound.Now it is very widely believed that there are only two sources ofknowledge: observation and deductive reasoning. This is perhaps one ofthe few premises shared by philosophers as diverse as Rand and Hume,though naturally they put different spins on it. Now it is not too hardto show that IF these are the only two sources of knowledge, then moralknowledge is impossible. (Of course, just because we are totallyignorant about something, we could not infer that the thing did notexist; but, as with astrology, if a field is shown to have no validmethods, then the validity of the field itself falls into question.)So why can’t observation yield moral knowledge? Simply put, no matterhow long you look at something, listen to it, smell it, taste it, ortouch it, no moral conclusions arise. That seems fairly obvious, but ithas wide-reaching ramifications. For suppose that we try to justify amoral conclusion with deductive reasoning. The problem here is thatdeductive reasoning merely shows that IF the premises are true, THEN theconclusions are true, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING WHETHER OR NOT THE PREMISESARE TRUE.Therefore, for a deductive argument to yield a trueconclusion, we must know that the premises are true, and must thereforehave some non-deductive means of knowing this if we are to avoid aninfinite regress. Normally, this is no problem, since we can useobservation to establish the truth of the premises. But as we noted atthe outset, moral conclusions can’t be reached by observation. But couldn’t premises verified through observation coupled withdeductive reasoning yield a moral conclusion? I answer that they couldnot. As a general rule, a deductive argument can only reach aconclusion within the basic subject matter of the premises. You can’tstart with a premise about geometry and wide up with a conclusion abouthistory; nor can you take an historical premise and yield a geometricalconclusion. Deductive reasoning may yield new and interesting results,but not about a totally distinct field of study than that of yourinitial premises. So we seem to be in a quandary; neither observation nor deductivereasoning can yield moral knowledge. Fortunately, the quandary isself-created by the initial premise. If we take the premise seriously,we will notice that many NON-moral items are knowledge also fall intoquestion. Take, for three examples, the following propositions:1. Every effect has a cause; the same cause always produces the sameeffect. 2. The argument ad hominem is a fallacy. 3. 2+2=4Notice: all three are non-moral; and none of them could be known merelythrough observation or deductive reasoning. We surely do not observeevery effect and every cause, then conclude that they always come inpairs. But neither do we deduce the law of cause-and-effect fromanother, more basic premise. So too with the logical principle that theargument ad hominem is a fallacy; it is not that we learn it by

carefully staring at it; but neither is it the product of a deductiveargument. Or to take the final case, we don’t learn tha 2 and 2 mustalways make four by observing groupings of 2’s (though doing so mightsurely help us grasp the principle), nor by deducing it from anythingelse. But if we don’t learn any of these propositions by observation ordeductive reasoning, how do we learn them? I answer that the previousaccount of knowledge makes a critical sin of omission: it assumes thatdeductive, indirect use of reason is the entire faculty. I say thatthere is also DIRECT reason, which we may also call intellect orintuition. We use our direct reason when we simply turn our intellectsto a proposition and think about it as honestly and critically as wecan; and coupled with sufficient intelligence, SOMETIMES we canimmediately see the proposition under consideration is true or false. Thus, to validate the law of cause and effect, I turn my intellect tothe proposition and think about it to the best of my ability; andeventually its truth becomes evident. So too with the fallacy adhominem: I think about the fallacy, tur