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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Authority of "Ought."
- Thread starter Guitar's Cry
- Start date
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
And even then, I would imagine it would vary according to the situation. A deontologist may take a more utilitarian approach depending on the context...
I suppose that doesn't help much in terms of discussing the topic, eh, Sunstone?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
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?
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
Social consensus embodied in time in the language of authority figures/institutions is my guess GC.
blackout
Violet.
I am SO with the point of your question GC.
There IS no authority and certainty behind our "oughts" "shoulds" and "have to's",
OTHER than the author-ity of OUR OWN reality constructs.
(ie. our own selves, and the I-deas we have given ourselves over to.)
Yes, most "oughts" have been originated and handed down
by "world" author-ities and in-stitutions,
as Ozzie said.
Of course individuals need to "buy" into them,
before they are given any value. (if only illusory)
There IS no authority and certainty behind our "oughts" "shoulds" and "have to's",
OTHER than the author-ity of OUR OWN reality constructs.
(ie. our own selves, and the I-deas we have given ourselves over to.)
Yes, most "oughts" have been originated and handed down
by "world" author-ities and in-stitutions,
as Ozzie said.
Of course individuals need to "buy" into them,
before they are given any value. (if only illusory)
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
It seems to me that the authority of ought is simply that what one ought to do is a necessary means to some needed good.
And so its authority is simply of the form: "it is in your best interests to do X. If you don't do X, you'll miss out and might be hurting yourself."
Of course, in society there may be social punishments for not living according to claimed oughts, but that's a separate issue.
eudaimonia,
Mark
And so its authority is simply of the form: "it is in your best interests to do X. If you don't do X, you'll miss out and might be hurting yourself."
Of course, in society there may be social punishments for not living according to claimed oughts, but that's a separate issue.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
When ever I hear an "Ought" I always think "Not" and utter "Sez you!"
Fluffy
A fool
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:
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 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.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
So the authority of "ought" is method? Do you suppose that is behind the common usage of it, though?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
"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.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Hm...so the authority of "Ought" is desire: the desire of an outcome...
Are there no "Oughts" in Thailand?
No, not really and some times I think there should be, that is not to say ethics are on vacation but in many cases anythings goes. The biggest "ought not" I see should be in place is that you ought not drive drunk but Thais think its fun. Mind you there are laws in place but no one cares unless some one gets hurt.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
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".
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
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?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
As in, they think you simply "ought" to X?
Chances are that's how some people will think abuot some things, but I think EVERYTHING involving "ought" is a statement saying that essentially Y follows X, X being what you "ought" to do for "Y" to happen.
Sure, there will be instances where there seems to be no "Y", but when someone says "you ought to X" you can ask "Why?" to reveal the "Y"
The reason is likely, in these cases, to be "because it's bad" (i.e. - because I disagree with that action, and I think it is bad and I wouldn't want you to do that to me).
So a big reason is probably personal morality, "because God said so" (which can further be extended to - "because else you'll go to hell" or similar).
But at the end, you can always find out what somebody thinks the "Y" is of "X".
blackout
Violet.
You "ought" to do this to be a good person.
You "ought" to live this way so you don't go to hell.
You "ought" not let anyone know who you really are,
lest they burn you at the stake.
So many things we "should" do if we want to retain our "normal" lives.
I think every ought and should has an implied consequence.
(not always a contrived or manipulative one either)
We all make decisions about what we want our reality to be,
and how we are going to get there.
I prefer "I Will" personally.
Or "it would be a good step" to...._____.
I don't think I use "ought" much because it sounds like there's more behind it
than my own personal idea.
Then it makes me feel "enslaved" to my decisions...
instead of free and empowered in them.