The Authority of "Ought."

[methylatedghosts]

Or "it would be a good step" to...._____.

mmhmm - leaves it open to describe the consequence and the reason for taking that step.

 

[Fluffy]

So the authority of "ought" is method? Do you suppose that is behind the common usage of it, though?

Perhaps there is very little meaning behind the common usage beyond an incredibly naive understanding of objectivity which is attributed to project authority.

I am unsure whether philosophers should be concerned about how words are used normally. They should look at concepts and only use versions that are maximally coherent (internally and externally) and then assign words to those concepts. I debated this the other day with my philosophy tutor who felt that words with indeterminate meaning posed a problem to classical logic. My solution: Discard vague words just as classical logic already discards ambiguous words. Problem solved.

Who cares how people use "ought" normally? Most commonly used words reference incoherent concepts so why try to make sense of them? Just disregard them and utilise those concepts that do make sense.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You "ought" to do this to be a good person.

Better rephrased as:

You ought to do this to be what I think is a good person.

 

[Ozzie]

Perhaps there is very little meaning behind the common usage beyond an incredibly naive understanding of objectivity which is attributed to project authority.

I am unsure whether philosophers should be concerned about how words are used normally.

That ought to be the central project of philosophy.

 

[Fluffy]

That ought to be the central project of philosophy.

Ought as in a reference to an external authority?
Philosophy as in riddles told to one another at 3 in the morning after a night of heavy drinking?

How have you decided what level of technical language is acceptable in philosophy?

 

[Ozzie]

Ought as in a reference to an external authority?

No

How have you decided what level of technical language is acceptable in philosophy?

Descriptive language only.

 

[doppelganger]

Better rephrased as:

You ought to do this to be what I think is a good person.

I think this is conceptually similar to the idea behind attempts to revise language to include the subjective aspect of experience and knowledge. Like "E-prime", which, as I understand it, tries to carefully limit the the use of the verb form "to be" in discussing matters of ontology.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Guitar's Cry,
The authority comes from awareness.
The individual who is more aware automatically has more knowledge and authority in REAL / moral terms but otherwise it often depends on social code of status / heiracrchy etc
Love & rgds

 

[Fluffy]

No

But that is how it is used normally. Not: imperative+opinion.

Descriptive language only.

Sorry, I've never heard of that term before. What are the different types of language and what is the difference between descriptive language and these other types?

Edit: Is your sentence, itself, descriptive language?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Guitar's cry,
Authority comes from awareness.
Individual who is more aware has more knowledge and so has the authority this is natural and moral.
The other types are social /heirarchical / psychological / etc.
BUT in the latter type the person who is aware though may act on what the authority wants but does not follow it blindly. Does it for the act itself.
Love & rgds

 

[Francine]

Better rephrased as:

You ought to do this to be what I think is a good person.

To which we may respond:

You ought to know better than to try to manipulate people who don't give a dang what you think.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You ought to know better than to try to manipulate people who don't give a dang what you think.

if...?