At 7/10/2012 8:27:08 PM, Ren wrote:
I am surprized 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 an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that 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.."
This isn't an impasse, it's you down-and-out lying about Hume and purposefully ignoring what I am saying.
I just quoted YOUR PAPER to show that Hume says EXACTLY what I say.
You said I was using Moore's interpretation. I showed you that word for word I was using Hume.
Hume NEVER said that you can "bridge" is the is-ought problem with an ethical statement derived from a positive statement. If such a thing could be done then THERE IS NO "IS-OUGHT DILEMMA."
Hume NEVER mentioned the common good as a source of defining what is "right."
You quote Hume:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all 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 an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that 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."
This is easier to understand when you put it in context:
First, let's define our terms. Hume says "reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to real relations of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact. Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be the object of our reason
So, when Hume says "outside reason" he MEANS that the proposition cannot be true or false. He DOES NOT mean you cannot use "reason" to think moral statements.
Next, he gives examples of things that are neither true nor false and therefore "outside reason."
"Now it is evident our passions, volitions, and actions,
are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement; being original facts and realities, compleat in themselves, and implying no reference to other passions, volitions, and actions. It is impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason."
PASSION, as defined by Hume, is in contrast to UNDERSTANDING.
"Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always comprehended under the latter division, it is supposed to influence our passions
and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding
... A person may be affected with passion, by supposing a pain or pleasure to lie in an object, which has no tendency to produce either of these sensations, or which produces the contrary to what is imagined.
Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions
, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason
REASON, then (according to Hume), can only influence conduct in one of two ways:" It has been observed, that reason, in a strict and philosophical sense, can have influence on our conduct only after two ways: of the existence of something which is a proper object of it; or when it discovers the connexion of causes and effects, so as to afford us means of exerting any passion."
TO CONCLUDE: When Hume says morality is "outside reason" he means that you cannot give a moral statement truth values if they are not derived from a statement which corresponds to some state of affairs in reality.
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying.
Now, you can retract your claim that I defined the argument using Moore instead of Hume, or you can rebut it.
Then, maybe, just maybe, you'll actually try addressing how Hume's argument defeats your pragmatism as easily as it defeats utilitarianism.