The "is-ought problem," also known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine, is a fundamental philosophical issue that addresses the relationship between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). The problem was articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1739.
Key Aspects of the Philosophy of the Is-Ought Problem
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Statements:
Descriptive Statements (Is): These are factual statements about the world. They describe how things are. Examples include "Water boils at 100°C" or "Humans need food to survive."
Prescriptive Statements (Ought): These are normative statements that prescribe how things should be. They reflect values, ethics, or duties. Examples include "People ought to help those in need" or "One should tell the truth."
Hume's Formulation:
David Hume observed that many philosophical arguments attempt to derive prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises. He argued that there is a fundamental logical gap between statements about what is and statements about what ought to be. According to Hume, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without introducing some additional normative premise.
Implications for Ethics and Morality:
The is-ought problem has significant implications for moral philosophy. It challenges the notion that objective moral truths can be derived from purely empirical observations. This has led to debates about the foundation of moral principles and the role of reason and emotion in ethical judgments.
Responses to the Is-Ought Problem:
Naturalistic Fallacy: Some philosophers argue that attempts to derive moral principles directly from natural facts commit the "naturalistic fallacy." This term, popularized by G.E. Moore, refers to the mistake of defining moral terms in purely naturalistic terms.
Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs or feelings. They seek to establish a rational basis for bridging the is-ought gap.
Constructivist Approaches: Constructivists propose that moral principles are constructed through rational deliberation, social agreements, or cultural practices, rather than being derived from natural facts.
Virtue Ethics: Some ethical theories, like virtue ethics, focus on the development of moral character and virtues, arguing that moral principles can be grounded in the nature of human flourishing.
Contemporary Debates:
The is-ought problem continues to be a central topic in meta-ethics and the philosophy of language. Philosophers explore whether and how normative statements can be grounded in empirical reality, the role of human psychology in moral reasoning, and the nature of ethical language and meaning.
Conclusion
The philosophy of the is-ought problem challenges us to carefully examine the foundations of our moral and ethical beliefs. By highlighting the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive statements, it invites ongoing reflection on how we justify our moral principles and the ways in which we connect facts about the world with our values and duties.
My boyfriends entire family has always been neck deep into the homeopathic remedies. I suppose they had a bad time with the traditional vaccines and were convinced that all their illnesses came from those vax. I was talking to him about it a little because he went off on something about how the medicine can even cure suicidal tendencies...LOL his argument against it was "Well it couldnt be placebo because, placebo only works if the person believes the medication to work and wants it to work. And, do people with suicidal tendencies actually want it to work? But yet it still does." ???Coincidentally, the entire family is Christian... I almost feel bad for whoever gets trapped in the clutches of this stupid scam because its predatory almost. On some level I guess I can kind of see some plausibility for something like a rash or something topical maybe, but its bonkers how they think fucking Belladonna and alcohol dilution is the cure all substance for Schizophrenia!! Taking a known poisonous plant that causes hallucinations and delusional thinking (yk, cause its poisonous) and mixing it with alcohol and water, so much to the point of where there is hardly any plant substance left, comical as hell. But I guess "like cures like" or whatever.
Some aspects of homeopathy do seem to dovetail closely with religious faith healing. Magical thinking about anointing with oils and magical thinking about "water memory" are not far apart.
Other aspects of it seem to line up with that granola "all natural," "chemical free" mentality. So it seems like the kind of scam that appeals to people of many different stripes.
On placebos, you should show him the below. This study was particular to IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) specifically because it's a subjective ailment (versus, say, tumors that objectively exist and are measurable). The authors admit it needs further study to see how applicable this is to other conditions.
The problem with homeopathy is, of course, not that it's a placebo - it's just plain lucky that it is when they're using Belladonna. It's that they lie about it not being a placebo. They're lying about it, selling it as real medicine, complete with real medicine price tag rather than sugar/water price tag, when it's not.
==
Placebo treatment can significantly influence subjective symptoms. However, it is widely believed that response to placebo requires concealm
Introduction
Placebo treatment can have a significant impact on subjective complaints. Furthermore, recent studies have shown measurable physiological changes in response to placebo treatment that could explain how placebos alter symptoms. A critical question is establishing how physicians and other providers can take optimal advantage of placebo effects consistent with their responsibility to foster patient trust and obtain informed consent. Directly harnessing placebo effects in a clinical setting has been problematic because of a widespread belief that beneficial responses to placebo treatment require concealment or deception. This belief creates an ethical conundrum: to be beneficial in clinical practice placebos require deception but this violates the ethical principles of respect for patient autonomy and informed consent. In the clinical setting, prevalent ethical norms emphasize that “the use of a placebo without the patient's knowledge may undermine trust, compromise the patient-physician relationship, and result in medical harm to the patient.” Nevertheless, a recent national survey of internists and rheumatologists in the US found that while only small numbers of US physicians surreptitiously use inert placebo pills and injections, approximately 50% prescribe medications that they consider to have no specific effect on patients' conditions and are used solely as placebos (sometimes called “impure placebos.”) Many other studies confirm this finding. Given this situation, finding effective means of harnessing placebo responses in clinical practice without deception is a high priority.
[..]
The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of recruiting IBS patients to participate in a trial of open-label placebo and to assess whether an open-label placebo pill with a persuasive rationale was more effective than no-treatment in relieving symptoms of IBS in the setting of matched patient-provider interactions.
Design
A three week randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing open-label placebo to no-treatment controls was conducted between August 2009 and April 2010 in a single academic medical center. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to participation on the study. The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Institutional Review Board approved the design and informed consent.
Patients who gave informed consent and fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into two groups: 1) placebo pill twice daily or 2) no-treatment. Before randomization and during the screening, the placebo pills were truthfully described as inert or inactive pills, like sugar pills, without any medication in it. Additionally, patients were told that “placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body self-healing processes.” The patient-provider relationship and contact time was similar in both groups.
Two-group, randomized, controlled three week trial (August 2009-April 2010) conducted at a single academic center, involving 80 primarily female (70%) patients, mean age 47±18 with IBS diagnosed by Rome III criteria and with a score ≥150 on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS). Patients were randomized to either open-label placebo pills presented as “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes” or no-treatment controls with the same quality of interaction with providers. The primary outcome was IBS Global Improvement Scale (IBS-GIS). Secondary measures were IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), IBS Adequate Relief (IBS-AR) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QoL).
[..]
Discussion
We found that patients given open-label placebo in the context of a supportive patient-practitioner relationship and a persuasive rationale had clinically meaningful symptom improvement that was significantly better than a no-treatment control group with matched patient-provider interaction. To our knowledge, this is the first RCT comparing open-label placebo to a no-treatment control. Previous studies of the effects of open-label placebo treatment either failed to include no-treatment controls [27] or combined it with active drug treatment. [28] Our study suggests that openly described inert interventions when delivered with a plausible rationale can produce placebo responses reflecting symptomatic improvements without deception or concealment.
Our results challenge “the conventional wisdom” that placebo effects require “intentional ignorance.” [29] Our data suggest that harnessing placebo effects without deception is possible in the context of 1) an accurate description of what is known about placebo effects, 2) encouragement to suspend disbelief, 3) instructions that foster a positive but realistic expectancy, and 4) directions to adhere to the medical ritual of pill taking. It is likely our study also benefited from ongoing media attention giving credence to powerful placebo effects.
Both treatment arms were given in a context of a warm patient-provider relationship. It is possible that this relationship had a positive benefit for the patients, and indeed, the no-treatment arm showed improvement. Given that patients in both treatment arms experienced the same frequency and duration of contact time and the content of the interaction was very similar, we believe that the incremental improvement in our open-label arm was due to the addition of open-label placebo treatment. The magnitude of improvement reported by those on open-label placebo treatment was not only statistically significant but also clinically meaningful.
[..]
In summary, our study suggests that patients are willing to take open-label placebos and that such a treatment may have salubrious effects. Further research is warranted in IBS and perhaps other illnesses to confirm that placebo treatments can be beneficial when provided openly and to determine the best methods for administering such treatments.
GEORGE EDWARD MOORE WAS AN ENGLISH PHILOSOPHER. HE WAS, WITH BERTRAND RUSSELL, LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN, AND (BEFORE THEM) GOTTLOB FREGE, ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. ALONG WITH RUSSELL, HE LED THE TURN AWAY FROM IDEALISM IN BRITISH PHILOSOPHY, AND BECAME WELL KNOWN FOR HIS ADVOCACY OF COMMON SENSE CONCEPTS, HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO ETHICS, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND METAPHYSICS, AND "HIS EXCEPTIONAL PERSONALITY AND MORAL CHARACTER".
In meta-ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of merely described entities, properties, or processes such as pleasant, desirable, or fitness.
The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.
~~~
To assume that something is good or right just because it is "natural" or "traditional". "National is moral" essentially. I've never subscribed to this ignorant notion. Throughout my life when I've told people that I was Jamaican their immediate response was "Oh, you smoke weed." Not even a question, a statement. Ignorantly never realizing their bias. Every time I would say "no, I don't do drugs" like clockwork EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S response was ALWAYS "weed is natural, it's not drugs, it's a plant". 😤😤😤😤
This always prompted me to say "cocaine comes from the coco plant", "opium comes from the poppy plant" also "poison ivy, snake venom and poisonous berries are all natural, as is the Atlantic Ocean, why aren't you smoking those or swimming there?" The Socratic Method as you will. I just can't help myself. I always hold the mirror up.
This is why I can't keep people around me because most folks are silly and don't think before they speak so I'm often prompted to drag them. Perhaps it's the 'ttarius' in me. We can go further into the sex and marriage discussions I've had where people want to tell me that sex is natural, and marriage is traditional, therefore they're moral practices that I SHOULD be doing. When I say "with sex comes children which comes expenses", "with marriage comes extended living costs, are you going to pay for these?" They look at me like "why would I pay for your life?" Oh but you can tell me what I should be morally doing with my life? My thing (the 'not having kids' thing) is not even that deep. I just don't want to bring more laborers here. I think folks should do it themselves if they want to continue their lineage. Why should others live their lives for you to uphold your lifestyle and your kids and their kids? Fuck outta here. Pick your own fucking strawberries!
This phrase 'naturalistic fallacy' was brought up to me this week when describing a person's behavior as being good or okay only in comparison to other's behavior. For example: "my son gets As and Bs, so he's a good student. Other kids gets Cs and Ds, so they're bad students." or "my husband doesn't hit me like other husbands, so he's a good guy". This..................So since others do a bad/wrong thing anyone who doesn't do that deserves praise. I don't agree with this AT ALL. I don't think I deserve praise because I am not going around hurting or harming people. I don't think I deserve praise because I'm not corrupt. If I were married and my spouse didn't cheat on me, they wouldn't get brownie points for that. That would be expected. If they ever tried to throw it in my face that I should be maybe "lucky" or "grateful" that they aren't hurting me (presumably meaning they could, would, and can easily) I'd actually run. The kid who gets As and Bs, should, if he's doing what he's supposed to be doing, which is being studious. You're not in school to not study. You're not in a marriage to not be faithful or to beat on your spouse. Go take a boxing class for that. *Redirect your issues in a constructive manner.
This fallacy is why people cheer when they see a father with their kids at a park or pick them up from school. Yet they see mother's with their kids all the time and mom's don't get praise. Well "she's supposed to do that." They don't realize that this is the same as saying "he isn't supposed to, or shouldn't have to....ya know 'cause she's there. Kids are her territory". Nurturing kids are parents territory. Naturalistic fallacy.....
Many people need to think about their jokes and rhetoric
If your response to evil people living long due to to good medical care is to say that medicine is subverting the natural order and keeping them alive past the point they should have died rather than being angry that other people don’t have access to the same healthcare, you need to take a look at your train of thought track.
Petroleum was formed by the decomposition of microorganisms over millions of years. It’s rich in carbon because it’s made up of the building blocks of life.
In that light, it becomes much harder for me to see “plastic” as the antithesis of all things natural and enspirited.
The bottle your shampoo comes in? Used to be alive. The disposable fork that came with your meal? Used to be alive. And any plastic tools you may have on your altar? Also used to be alive. It was a long time ago and it has undergone a lot of changes, but whatever plastic object you’re using to read this post used to float around in the primordial ocean, trying to ensure the survival of its DNA just like every other living thing. I think about that a lot.
When I was in my early teens, I hated nature. I'm not talking about trees and animals, I hated the nature in me. In those years I found out about menstruation, a "natural cycle" for women, and I felt betrayed by my body. I was told that it was natural for women to feel those pains that made me throw up. And that’s only the beginning. I was told that genders had a biological basis, that men were naturally agressive and women natural caretakers, and that it was written in their genes. I was told that men were naturally more capacitated to be architecs and drivers, because they developed a sense of space from a very early age, meanwhile girls were wired to learn communicative skills and empathy. I was told that in virtue of nature men were polygamous and women designed to look for a father for their children; I was told that in nature men competed for women and women were the prize. I was told that men raped women because they couldn't fight their natural drives. I was told that capitalism and economic competitiveness was the natural order -the survival of the strongest- and that heterosexuality and sexual binarism were the natural law, that reproduction was the natural goal of sex and motherhood the natural culmination of a woman's life. I hated sex, I hated my ovaries and my uterus. I hated that potential of getting pregnant. I hated knowing that a man could rape me and get me pregnant. And that was nature: a force acting surreptitiously against my desires, sabotaging my will from within and from without me, absolutely out of my control and socially supported.
Because nature was my enemy, I became interested in what I was told was the anti-natural and unsurprisingly I found my people under that label. I found the LGBTQ+ community, and I found a lot of women, and they shared my worries and my rage.
Of course, nature wasn't the problem: it was ideology. Nature was interpretated for the benefit of the dominant group. I didn't hate nature after all, I hated the people behind a concept forged to maintain their dominance.
What I want so say is.. distrust the argument "that's natural/anti-natural", it's the oldest fallacy in the world. Humans are social animals, culture is our nature. Our behaviors are highly codified in society and codes are negotiable. Don't let them transform their privilege in something inherent in the matter of which you are made. In nature there are no meanings or purposes.
