Talk:Is–ought problem

Images?

I'm not exactly sure what the purpose is of some of the images in this article. A view of the Earth from the moon and an image of a goalpost seem rather... unnecessary. As if one of the authors of this article wanted to include graphics and couldn't think of anything that actually applied to the article. I believe they should be removed. RobertM525 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if you think it fails MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, feel free to just attempt to remove it per WP:BRD. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References needed

There are no references in the paragraph about ethical naturalism and the "category error" response to ethical naturalism. Who's responses are these?? 198.91.156.175 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

positivism

"The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is." I find this conclusion absurd. A basic moral truth has to exist but nowhere does anyone specify it has to belong in the empirical domains of reality. This is only a naive empricisitic problem. It does not meaningfully distinguish between rational and empirical truths in their most basic manners. This whole problem arises from the stubborn determination of trying to reduce all rational truths to some empirical and "facts" when obviously the square peg does not fit in the circular hole. Positivsm aka "science"tm in a nutshell.109.245.35.84 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There are many philosophers who disagree with Hume's meta-ethics, including the is-ought problem. But others agree with it. As wikipedia editors, we shouldn't take sides but just present Hume's theory and how other philosophers responded to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Much of the article is a tapestry of bad and irrelevant arguments. Is there really any point in reciting so many futile attempts to refute Hume? Liscaraig (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this an is from an ought?

Alasdair MacIntyre points out, from the statement "This watch is grossly inaccurate and irregular in time-keeping and too heavy to carry about comfortably," the evaluative conclusion validly follows, "This is a bad watch." ^[20]

Maybe im reading it wrong, but the first part of the example doesn't sound like an ought. MorningBlue (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

First Sentences

The current first sentence relies on the reader knowing ahead of time how to parse the words. The backbone of the current sentence is this:

"[The problem] arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is."

In particular this run of words, "claims about what ought to be that are based on statements" is gobbledegook if you haven't already sat through lectures where "claims" are discussed. It's a long way from "claims" to "based solely on statements". And "problem arises" is an archaic and florid construction.

My attempt to put this in more everyday English was reverted. Here is the backbone of the sentence I proposed.

"[The problem] is that describing how things are is very different from describing how things aught to be."

MOS:LEAD MOS:STYLE: "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language." DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your suggested definition is correct. As I understand it, it's not merely about difference but about the idea that you cannot infer normative statements from descritive ones. We could use the formulation: The is–ought problem ... is the question of whether statements about what ought to be can be inferred from statements about what is. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I like your sentence a lot. It's clear and simple. I'd prefer it greatly to what's there now. As to whether or not it's more accurate, I'm not sure. It depends on whether or not you are talking about Hume's formulation or subsequent discussions. Also I don't love formulating it in terms of "claims" or "statements" because that's a philosopher's formulation but to the lay audience it sounds like you're hedging your bets. People care about what IS moral. How can you know what IS correct. And Hume talked about relations of objects.

And of course "infer" has a very technical meaning as well. But these are all pills I'm happy to swallow if you want to put your version in.

Thanks DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion and simplified some more. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge With Fact-Value Distinction

What do you think about merging this page with Fact–value distinction? It seems like the pages are redundant.I would merge it into this page so both would be called "Is-aught problem". Or maybe change "problem" to "Distinction"? Also I think part of the problem with this page is that it purports to be about Hume's formulation but wants to branch off to the modern wording. As with The Original position it can become a turf war between fans and enemies of the particular thinker and arguments about how much credit they should get while the concept itself gets lost in the weeds. So we'd have to guard against that on the new page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)