Is "Ought" necessary?

Is "Ought" necessary?

~~~ Everything that exists, and that includes words and concepts, 'thoughts', can be considered to be 'necessary' to existence, Reality as it is!

That being said, 'ought' is a moral judgment, the sin of Pride.

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against judging others;

"Judge not lest you be judged!"

Such is the sin of 'pride'!

'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of god!

You are told that;

"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"

And goes on to say that;

"None are righteous, no not one!"

Go figure! *__-

To say 'ought' means that you have judged What Is as, somehow, insufficient, and that you have a 'better' idea.

It is complete ego blather and ignorance.

In a friendly debate between some friends of mine on the topic of Objective Morality,

~~~ There is no such thing. 'Objective' and 'subjective' are meaningless words. The One Reality is perceived by a multitude of unique Conscious Perspectives (us). Individual, unique perception would certainly be considered 'subjective', which is how everything in existence is perceived.

Not anything in existence can be 'objectively' perceived. It is not possible.

The notion of an 'objective observer' has been a flaw in science for a long tome. It is resolved, now.

Every 'observer' is a 'unique' feature of the One.

'Morality' only exists in the individual eye of the observer.

It is schizophrenic to fragment That Which Is One! (as 'subjective/objective' attempts to do...)

It is in/as 'thought' alone that subject/object distinctions are observed!

Ego is 'thought'!

a friend brought up the word 'Ought'. Now I myself, being an Amoral Consequentialist argued there is not, nor need be any 'Ought'.

~~~ And I, as a Downhome Bubbadubba, tell you that the term 'ought' is already obsolete!

Control freaks say that people 'ought', to "do what I want when I want it!" How bourgeois... How boring...

No, it has outlived it's ignorant usefulness and it's toxicity has been exposed.

It will have vanished, along with the anachronistic 'true' and 'false'...

...we say whether it is good or bad. The objective 'Ought' is an illusion.

~~~ All obsolete, and there is no such thing, other than as words on this monitor, as 'objective morality'.

In the end, he only insisted that an "ought" is needed, or else people would treat rape just as bad as eating cake, and that it is the 'objective ought' that keeps us with rules.

~~~ It is our nature and fortune that keeps us from being locked away.

Most follow rules to avoid the consequences. No 'ought' necessary. If you murder, you go to prison. So you either do or don't commit the crime, all the time knowing this. Rationalize how you must.

If children are drilled with a bunch of clumsy "You MUSTs!" Then he will begin to think along such lines.. "I must..."! It's programming so they can be easily manipulated. You must/aught obey the 'authority'!

Is 'Ought' needed?

~~~ A vice, a sin, a forcing of your ego upon another, and obsolete!

"Ought" is simply a second stage judgment..... a judgment based on the aggregated pattern of several judgments of different people and times. Hence it is as necessary and unavoidable as the primary judgment is. It has the strength of a statistical truth, though it does equally suffer from disadvantages of the same too. "ought" is a generalized concept or dictate and suffers when presumed to have universality; nevertheless there is objectivity to the extent any statistics can have...... incidentally, all our truths are based on statistical objectivity.

Not for the reason he claims. We don't need "ought" because people "ought to" differentiate cake and rape. That is circular reasoning.

Rather, it is a matter of causality. "Is" statements are statements of identity or causality (relationships). "ought" statements are equally about identity or causality. They are equivalent as far as that is concerned.

IF you rape someone, you WILL cause them harm, IF you avoid harming people, THEN you ought not rape someone. This statement is logically equivalent to an "is" statement.

The contention is about how or where standards arise. How do we decide that harming others is wrong? Well, this can also be derived from "is" statements. It IS a fact that the ability to act is predicated on one's life; if you cease to exist then you cannot act. If you can act, it would be conflicting to act such that you cannot act. That is one lead, one instance of an "is" statement that transforms into an "ought." The famous is-ought gap is traversable.

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Ayn Rand

So I'm sure you heard that from your Objectivist friends--or were they only objective, but not Objectivist?

John Locke gave America's Founders the key to our government, though as learned as they were they knew it already, but Locke gave it to them in the black-and-white phrases of the Enlightenment, and gave it in an "is-ought" axiom:

"The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]

Man is a living entity who "is" governed by a law nature of called called 'reason'; therefore, he 'ought' to 'consult' it. In doing so, he finds that he "ought not" harm another.