Talk:Is–ought problem

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Is–ought problem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]