Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
When we say that someone "ought" or "has" to do something, where is the authority behind it? This is a big problem for morality; from where does its power stem? Is it social, divine, personal?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Doesn't the answer to your question vary with whichever moral system you are considering?
Social consensus embodied in time in the language of authority figures/institutions is my guess GC.What prompted me to post this thread was the realization that this common little word is spoken with a tremendous amount of certainty and authority. From where does this power originate? Is it a barely conscious recognition of something?
I think it stems from order. We need things to be "in order" in order to be the best "us" we can be. That need gives us the authority to dictate what "order" should be.What prompted me to post this thread was the realization that this common little word is spoken with a tremendous amount of certainty and authority. From where does this power originate? Is it a barely conscious recognition of something?
Perhaps we can create a link between an objective and the method by which we can attain that objective. This is, after all, what we do in all other areas of philosophy.
For example, to look at specifically the Socratic/Aristotelian system, eudaimonia is our objective and defining arete (Socratic Intellectualism) is the method with which we can go about attaining it. Therefore, we might say:
"If you wish to attain eudaimonia then you ought to define arete."
Is that not sufficient for the needs of ethics?
I know exactly what you're talking about and I must say that is one of the reasons I am happy to live in my new country no one tells me what to think, do or say they don't even care if I come to work or not as long as I do my work.
"Ought" "should" and "must" statements, in my view, "should" be followed by an "if", or some explanation as to why:When we say that someone "ought" or "has" to do something, where is the authority behind it? This is a big problem for morality; from where does its power stem? Is it social, divine, personal?
"Ought" "should" and "must" statements, in my view, "should" be followed by an "if", or some explanation as to why:
You must brush your teeth - if you don't want cavities
You must not murder people - if you don't want us to put you in prison.
You ought to learn to swim - if you want to be able to survive a flash flood
You should study - if you want to pass next weeks exam.
Are there no "Oughts" in Thailand?
Mmhmm.Hm...so the authority of "Ought" is desire: the desire of an outcome...
Mmhmm.
While I sill say that "ought" has no authority, unless you give it such. "Ought" is probably more a statement of consequence. That you "ought" to do x to achieve or avoid consequence or outcome y. It is a statement about y following x, even though often times, "y" is left off, and the statment simply is about "x".
As in, they think you simply "ought" to X?Do you suppose there are instances where a person will use "ought" with no consequence?
Right, the authority is with the person receiving the "ought."
Do you suppose there are instances where a person will use "ought" with no consequence?