Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

How to ‘Derive’ Ought from Is

I demanded an argument valid in point of logical form all of whose premises are purely factual but whose conclusion is categorically (as opposed to hypothetically or conditionally) normative.  Recall that a factual proposition is one which, whether true or false, purports to record a fact,  and that a purely factual proposition is a factual proposition containing no admixture of normativity. 

My demand is easily, if trivially, satisfied.

Ex contradictione quodlibet.  From a contradiction anything, any proposition, follows.  This is rigorously provable within the precincts of the PC (the propositional calculus).  As follows:

1. p & ~p 
2. p  (from 1 by Simplification)
3. p v q (from 2 by Addition)
4. ~p & p (from 1 by Commutation)
5. ~p (from 4 by Simplification)
6. q (from 3, 5 by Disjunctive Syllogism)

Now plug in 'Obama is a liar' for p and 'One ought to be kind to all sentient beings' for q.  The result is:

Obama is a liar 
Obama is not a liar
Ergo
One ought to be kind to all sentient beings.

My demands have been satisifed.  The above is an argument valid in point of logical form whose premises are all purely factual and whose conclusion is categorically normative.

I am demanding too little!


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags: